Comment on Jan Paulsen: 2004 vs 2009 by Rich Constantinescu.
The question was put to Dr. Paulsen on the basis that, “Some of us are concerned that our church is employing professors and teachers that do not actively uphold some of the church’s distinctive teachings and positions.”
Dr. Paulsen tried to answer the question with the question, “Why does God allow sin in the universe?” “Somehow he allows it.”
His answer, sadly, was irrelevant as to whether teachers should be employed to teach in opposition to Seventh-day Adventist beliefs in a Seventh-day Adventist school.
Dr. Paulsen’s answer would be relevant to the question, “Some of us are concerned that our church grants Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to professors and teachers that do not actively uphold some of the church’s distinctive teachings and positions. These teachers should instead be destroyed immediately.”
Let’s try his answer in order to attempt a justification of a range of anti-Christian classes. Which of the following, if any, classes does the question, “Why does God allow sin in the universe?” justify being taught by a professor in a Seventh-day Adventist school?
1. “Dr. Witch”: teaching Sorcery 101 – (Revelation 21:8) “Because God allows sin in the universe.”
2. “Dr. Adulterer”: teaching Nightclub Management 101 – (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) “Because God allows sin in the universe.”
3. “Dr. Infidel”: teaching Evolutionary Biology 101 – (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 20:11) “Because God allows sin in the universe.”
4. “Dr. Idolator”: teaching Buddha Carving 101 – (Exodus 20:5) “Because God allows sin in the universe.”
5. “Dr. Defiler”: teaching Body Piercing, Tattooing and Masochism 101 – (1 Corinthians 3:17) “Because God allows sin in the universe.”
6. “Dr. Revenge”: teaching Nuclear Bomb Assembly 101 – (Matthew 5:43) “Because God allows sin in the universe.”
Satan was cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:8-9) and his teachings should be cast out of Christian schools. By the way, no one was saying every book, video and piece of music needs to be approved by the president. But when they are found to be anti-Christian there must be a system in place to remove them, their proponents or both.
Table of Contents
Rich Constantinescu Also Commented
BobRyan: Thus Ellen White argues that tithe funds redirected to unfunded ministries in the South, and to ministerâ€™s wives who elected to conduct their own independent ministries, and to retired ministers who were not being funded by the conference â€“ none of those examples of â€œredirectionâ€ was a case of money not going to the Lordâ€™s Storehouse according to Ellen White.
That is excellent material, Brother Bob. We may notice that, “none of these [three] examples of ‘redirection'” done or encouraged by E.G.W. was because of Conference apostasy or mismanagement of funds.
God loves you, and He stands at the helm. If the conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord, that is the sin of the erring ones. The Lord will not hold you responsible for it, if you do what you can to correct the evil. But do not commit sin yourselves by withholding from God His own property. Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 1, pp. 27, 28 (Aug. 10, 1890) emphasis supplied.
The reason that justifies the said unusual pattern of giving in the midst of all the counsel given on this subject, both Biblically and through the testimony of the Spirit of God, is not leverage against our leaders.
Steve Billiter: You used EGW like a sledgehammer accusing me of selfishness.
I pointed out three things with my February 21, 2010 post:
1. If a conference qualifies for a member, that same conference qualifies for the tithe of that member.
2. The SOP discourages the withholding of tithe from conferences if, “the conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord.” Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 1, pp. 27, 28 (Aug. 10, 1890)
3. The Bible records church apostasies and revivals in the Old and New Testaments showing tithe under the approval and mandate of God being brought to visible church leaders. (Cf. 2 Kings 12:9; Malachi 1:6, 7; Malachi 3:8, 9, 10; Mark 11:17; Luke 20:14; Luke 22:2; Luke 21:1-2, 3-4; Acts 4:34, 35, 36, 37)
What I post, I post for everyone to see. I’m sorry if I offended anyone with what I see as plain truth. There are faithful mixed with unfaithful ministers and workers. Increasing, “our financial hardships” should not be our business, however good may be our intentions. Ibid.
Blood transfusions must happen between one body and another as tithe was sent in special circumstances to other places but only in special circumstances, and not as a solution for disease.
Steve Billiter: Your condemning words are not appreciated.
I believe the counsel of Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 1, pp. 27, 28 (Aug. 10, 1890) but cannot accept credit for it. Scripture evidence that the redirection/withholding of tithe from the church-visible is encouraged by reason of apostasy would be relevant to damage-control if that is a proposed method.
Recent Comments by Rich Constantinescu
Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
Thank you Sean. Very helpful information. Praise God.
The Reptile King
Kent debuted here at ET two years ago with proclamations that there was no evidence that the theory of evolution was taught at LSU but since has modified his evolution-free period to the last 1.5 years. He has threatened to leave time after time but never did. Nor has he stopped reminding us us he is persecuted and misunderstood.
Kent: â€œBob, youâ€™ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldnâ€™t know â€œtruthâ€ if it smacked you between the eyes. Youâ€™ve proven to every reader here that you are not â€œin Christ.â€ Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.â€
Rich then noted that Kent shouldn’t be too upset about people not taking him as seriously as he would like because Kent came here pretending to not be an Adventist but it turned out he actually was an Adventist. The kind that doesn’t see much to worry about administration using vulgarity, drinking alcohol and evading authority albeit.
It is a little amusing that an observation that Kent tried to make readers think he wasn’t Adventist and the unacceptable tone of his ad hominem post towards Bob (not like the posts he harvested of Bob’s) is met by more ad hominem and – of all things – an accusation of ad hominem. I cannot think of many better text-book examples of projection.
However, credit where credit is due. Kent is persevering and he did let Bob keep his computer even though he made him throw away his modem. A nice scholar-to-scholar gesture or perhaps a typo yet short of the camaraderie we were waiting to see.
The Reptile King
Kent apparently does not realize he lost some of us when he stormed in to Educate Truth two years ago ranting and waving, “If I were an Adventist, I’d be ashamed to be one of you!” The fuss Kent put up made some here ask why an outsider was so upset about the Adventists not “representing”? When the shame game didn’t work Kent stormed out, stormed in, stormed out again (and again).
Some of us wondered, why is Kent so interested? Is he for lack of a better strategy trying to corner ET in any way he can in this case by shame and blame? Is he playing whatever side he can to get his advantage? Some of us asked directly if he was after all an Adventist, to which Kent irately responded, “as to the question of whether I’m an Adventist or not … it makes no difference.”
We have been for some time more than beginning to see the truth in that statement. Therefore Kent truly should not be upset when some people don’t take seriously his apology of, “I also am a Creationist.” Trust is built and the foundation is missing.
Here is recent gem towards a “fellow creationist”:
Kent says, “Bob, youâ€™ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldnâ€™t know â€œtruthâ€ if it smacked you between the eyes. Youâ€™ve proven to every reader here that you are not â€œin Christ.â€ Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.”
Hatred indeed. Those who stand for what they believe are, understandably, a mystery and great cause of perplexity to Kent usually worth many hours of his insight and forethought on his computer and modem. That last post apparently is not the fruit of taking enough time to cover one’s tracks.
The Reptile King
Kent, I was not primarily quoting EGW as an authority. I only noted that if someone quotes one portion of EGW writings as authoritative about the supposed disvalue of the “deductions of science” being evidence for or against a point of faith, they should be free to accept other parts of her writings which make it clear that science is not opposed to God’s Word. I do agree that the conflict is not between science and faith but only with the deductions of science and the conclusions of the natural, rebellious, un-renewed heart. EGW never opposed science. She opposed as the Bible says, “science falsely so-called.”
Our colleges all have students from non-Adventist persuasions. The world is invited to and attends all our other schools. They have a right to know what we are teaching if we are bearing false witness.
The Reptile King
Kent, you either missed or ignored the point. The point was and is, if someone would take EGW as saying “deductions of science” means there is no false science, just one true science that is totally contradictory to the Bible and we must choose to live in blind faith without it that is wholly inconsistent with the other many statements by the same author who talks about true science revealing God whereas false science doesn’t.
Your knot is easily untied. An enemy has done this.