Comment on The hinge of our faith by Rich Constantinescu.
Bravus says, “It is clearly simply not true that some people follow the entire Bible.”
The Bible says, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:” 1 Peter 2:21-22
The government of the United States of America necessitates taxation. Claiming lawful exclusion is still “Sola Law” or “Sola Lex Legis” because the law permits lawful exclusion.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor. 2:13) does not negate Sola Scriptura any more than comparing law with law make us or our lawyers and accountants lawbreakers.
No exclusion allows us to disbelieve the creation proclaimed as history in Genesis (Gen. 1:1; 2:1-3), inscribed in stone as law (Ex. 20:8-9, 10-11), referenced by Christ and apostles (Mk. 10:5-6; 2 Cor. 11:3) and given as the reason why we should bow down before and worship Jehovah (Ps. 95:3-4, 5-6; Rev. 4:11).
There must first be author before authority. Attempting to dethrone the Great Author was, is and will be the plan of Satan who resists God’s creative authority. The non-biblical error of evolution denies Jehovah the Great Author and unquestionably has, does and will lead to atheistic beliefs and infidel existence in its supporters as has been evidenced by its promoters without question.
Table of Contents
Rich Constantinescu Also Commented
The hinge of our faith
All Iâ€™m saying is that ALL is not EVERYTHING and you guys canâ€™t seem to admit it.
If we are asked to admit that the lake of fire will not cover the whole earth,
“But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Peter 3:7
and that Jesus’ life had sin, His mouth guile,
“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:” 1 Peter 2:22
then I cannot say that “all” is never “everything.” (Cf. 2 Peter 1:19, 20; Isaiah 28:10)
So clearly, from the Bible, if â€œwater over all the surface of the earthâ€ does not mean that water literally covered all the surface of the earth, one cannot support from the Bible that â€œall the high mountains under the entire heavens were coveredâ€ means that water literally covered all the surface of the earth.
The Bible says,
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. Genesis 7:19, 20
There appears a distinction in these verses between the low lying areas (earth), the higher areas (high hills) and the highest areas (mountains.) I believe the Bible meant just what it said, that the earth, all the high hills and the mountains were covered consecutively at one point then the water receded in reverse order.
Furthermore, this debate is an internal affair (at this point), and all church members have the privilege of full acquaintance with Ellen Whiteâ€™s writings. Her statements supporting Creation and â€œtrue scienceâ€ were given her by God for our doctrinal benefit. To neglect to use them in this discussion is to reject Godâ€™s gift and the light we might have through it.
I agree with your statement, Erik. To strengthen the Bible argument we use a modern messenger’s writings and words. To neglect to use them is to neglect a gift God has given.
On the other hand, we do not “resort” to prophetic writings in order to prove a Bible belief that is one of the most basic and fundamental, as if there is not enough evidence in Scripture to support the topic at hand, the doctrine of creationism. To say we do is an unfounded accusation. I don’t know a single person who does. I have yet to see someone here or other places that has used such in ignorance or disbelief of Genesis 1:31, Exodus 20:8-11 and Revelation 14:7.
The doctrine of creation is clear and prominent in Scripture thus it is simply impossible to accept Scripture as the Word of God and reject such plain statements as Psalms 33:9 and Revelation 4:11.
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.