Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Bill Sorensen.
“If the Church can’t present apologetic arguments in support of the Bible’s credibility, explanations that naturally appeal to rational candid minds, it is only natural to expect honest intelligent people to look elsewhere…”
Sean Pitman
“If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, though one rose from the dead.”
In telling this story, Jesus affirms the bible’s self revelation and authority and states by way of the parable, that no outside “evidence” will convince anyone if the bible does not persuade them by its own inherent arguments.
Prophecy foretells the future of the historical process. So, yes, evidence outside the bible testifies to its validity. Namely, the historical process.
But you must start with the bible and its self affirmation and then examine history to affirm the biblical revelations.
Could we first examine history and then turn to the bible to see if it has predicted the future? Yes. None the less, the bible spoke first, and history verified its declarations.
If we study nature for the sole purpose of affirming the scriptural accounts of creation and to see in what way they may be in harmony, all is well.
But since nature, in and of itself can not specifically “prove” that God created, we must accept the biblical statements and acknowledge that nature in and of itself can not be relied upon to prove origins.
It always goes back to the “first cause”, doesn’t it?
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Sean said…..
“@Bill Sorensen:
We’re talking about a rational faith being based on the weight of currently available empirical evidence. Even your appeal to historical sciences as a basis to support the Bible’s credibility is an appeal to a form of external empirical evidence – a form of science actually.”
Here you use the word “science” in a generic way. EGW calls it the “science of salvation”.
But it is not by way of natural law and its implication that anyone can “prove” that God created the heavens and the earth.
All we can deduce is this, if the God who can predict the future with absolute certainity, claims He is also the creator God, we can choose to believe it or not.
The fact that He can do just that, is sufficient “evidence” for any bible believing Christian. Most people converted by way of Adventism will usually admit our presentation of prophecy in Daniel and Revelation had a tremendous impact on their decision to become SDA Christians.
And it is not by bombarding them with natural law scientific evidence that they choose to believe. We choose to believe the flood because the bible says so. There are other possibilities that have some remote evidence to support them. Ice age, for instance. But in the end, it is always, “the bible says” for a Christian.
The genious of Satan’s attacks are always in this line…..”Maybe you didn’t understand what God said.” or….”Maybe you did not hear what He said correctly.” And….”Are you sure you know and understand what God meant by what He said.”
This is how he approached Eve in the garden. And is how he continues to undermine scripture by skeptics and infidels who hope to escape judgment by claiming the bible is not sufficiently clear so that we can be held accountable for what it says. John Alfke is classic on the Spectrum forum.
In the end, he hopes to deceive all by affirming that God is solely responsible, not only in creating moral beings, but for keeping them in His will. So man must be released from any “pressure” and/or intimidation and threats as part of the moral motivation to seek and know the will of God and do it.
But God continues to threaten sinners with death and demands accountability to know and find truth and then do it. And this is what the “Great Controversy” is all about.
Has God adequately communicated to man His will and made known His character in such a way that man is culpable and responsible for his final outcome? For a Christian, the answer is “yes”. For unbelievers, the answer is “no”.
A very simple issue actually. One that Satan would obscure in any way he can to divert our attention to anything and everything except this question.
Do I understand everything about God and His kingdom? NO. Do I understand enough to be held accountable for my decisions and actions? Yes. This is the crux of the controversy from the beginning of the rebellion in heaven to this very day.
Bill Sorensen
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
People leave “the church” when the church presents the true cross of scripture. And people don’t want to “bear the cross” and find a reason not to.
Unbelievers receive massive doses of affirmation by other unbelievers who affirm a crossless religion that they claim is supported by the bible. In the end, most people are deceived because they want to be.
By the way, nice to see you comment here Hubb. Hope all is well with you and your family.
Bill Sorensen
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
No matter how you state it, you can not “prove” God created anything. You must take His word for it.
Bill
Recent Comments by Bill Sorensen
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Sean Pitman:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
Paul says, “Sold in in.” and “Children of wrath just like everyone else.”
You may not like this biblical reality, but it is true none the less.
And yes, God has also provided a way of escape so that all who He has created “in sin” can be “born again” spiritually and escape their heritage of sin and shame.
I know a lot of people don’t like this idea, but it is true anyway. We are born lost with the potential to be saved if we accept Jesus and His atonement that is provisional for “whosoever will may come.”
Cain didn’t like it either and resisted the exhortation of his brother, Abel, to offer a sin offering because he was a sinner. Cain says, “No, I’ll bring a thank offering, but no sin offering. Sin is not my fault. God created me this way.”
Most people will be outside looking in because they agree with Cain but a few will be inside looking out because they agree with Abel.
Bill Sorensen
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Sean Pitman:
Well, Sean, I was not as confrontational as Wesley who said, “Those who deny the doctrine of original sin are heathen still.” … [deleted]
[Oh please…
If you want to have a real conversation, great. However, unless you actually respond substantively to the questions and counter arguments posed to you, without your needless pejoratives, I’m not going to continue posting your repetitive comments on this topic in this forum…]
-sdp
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
And the topic at hand is “What does it take to be a real SDA?”
It takes someone who is willing to follow the bible and its teaching in every particular. If you don’t believe this, you are not a “Protestant” SDA.
You then bring up the Trinity. Which is fine. But that is certainly not the only thing that qualifies for the topic of your thread.
So, here is what you stated to me…..”To be morally “guilty” of something, however, requires that one is consciously aware of what is right, but deliberately chooses to do what is wrong instead (James 4:17). Without the interplay of free will, there is no moral “guilt”.”
So a person is “born” selfish, proud, coveteous, vain….etc, but not “guilty” of being, selfish, proud, coveteous, vain….etc. Your limited view of “guilt” is not biblical. Half a truth is equal to a lie. There is certainly conscience guilt. But guilt is more than awareness of right and wrong. “Sin is transgression of the law”, and the law doesn’t care what you know, or don’t know. If you break the law, you are guilty of breaking the law.
Just admit the truth, Sean. But don’t accuse me of going outside the intent of this thread when it was not specifically stated as a thread about the Trinity.
Just “man up” once in a while and admit you are wrong. We are all born guilty in the eyes of God. And our ignorance does not free us from this fact.
Bill Sorensen
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Well, Sean, this article is about Dr. Taylor and his argument to negate the bible. Maybe you and Goldstein can persuade him with your arguments.
The evidences of nature function as a “law that is a schoolmaster” to lead us to the bible. “The heavens declare the glory of God…….” but still does not tell us who God is nor the function of His government concerning the moral law.
In fact, natural law is so convoluted by sin that “survival of the fittest” is the only logical conclusion.
At any rate, I wish you well in your endeavors to support the creation account in scripture.
Take care.
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Sean Pitman:
I read Kevin Paulson’s article and he “double talks” around the obvious to deny and/or ignore the reality of what the bible teaches and EGW confirms.
Babies are born guilty of sin because they are born with the spirit of sin. They have no power to do anything but sin unless and until by the special grace of God, they are given the ability to “choose”.
If you add God’s grace to the bible definition of original sin, you can make man free to act all you want. Original sin has to do with the fall of Adam and the results. It is not about God’s grace that has been added by way of the cross. So EGW has stated clearly in support of the fall and its effects on Adam’s children.
” God declares, “I will put enmity.” This enmity is not naturally entertained. When man transgressed the divine law, his nature became evil, and he was in harmony, and not at variance, with Satan. There exists naturally no enmity between sinful man and the originator of sin. Both became evil through apostasy. The apostate is never at rest, except as he obtains sympathy and support by inducing others to follow his example. For this reason, fallen angels and wicked men unite in desperate companionship. Had not God specially interposed, Satan and man would have entered into an alliance against Heaven; and instead of cherishing enmity against Satan, the whole human family would have been united in opposition to God.” {GC88 505.2}
Those who deny original sin and its effects on the children of Adam always appeal to the atonement and the grace of God. But we see that God “put” enmity between Satan and the human family.
As Luther said to Erasmus in their discussion on this matter when Erasmus claimed the will was free by way of grace,
“Once you add grace you can make the will as free as you like.”
Original sin is not about grace nor what man can do once grace is implied and involved. Original sin is about what man is after the fall apart from grace and/or God’s special action super-imposed in the situation. So, if there is no original sin, neither is there any need for grace.
Kevin Paulson convolutes the issue just like other SDA scholars by making no distinction between how man is after the fall with or without grace.
So, in light of original sin, David says, “The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Ps. 58
David knows apart from God’s grace, no one can do anything but sin. Original sin highlights the necessity and value of the atonement and what it truly means to be “born again.”
Hear the words of Jesus, “That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit, ye must be born again.”
Original sin is exactly why Jesus made this comment. No one can read and understand the bible who denies the reality of original sin and its effects on all the children of Adam. We are all born guilty of sin, even before we act. So Isaiah says, “Write the vision and make it plain, that wayfareing men, though fools, need not err therein.”
In closing, original sin is not about the atonement nor its meaning and application to humanity. It is about man as he comes from Adam lost and without hope, power, choice or any ability to do anything about his situation.
