An agnostic is nothing but a skeptic at best. Like …

Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Bill Sorensen.

An agnostic is nothing but a skeptic at best. Like John Alfke on the liberal forums, I could only wonder why an agnostic whould have any voice on a conservative SDA discussion on any doctrine?

So I would say to Ken. Any agnostic is not my “friend” in any biblical discussion. And I doubt you are anyone’s “friend” who takes the bible seriously.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

A “Christian Agnostic”?
Pastor Cook said…..

” I know we are not in Kansas yet but we will be going to even a better place!”

Well……I hope so, I am in Kansas now. Actually, it is about as good as you can get in this old world…..So….I like me here, until the Lord will take me there.

Are you still in Colorado, Hub?


A “Christian Agnostic”?
Wayne said…..

“The officials of the Adventist church from the top down, including the educational institutions will be responsible for any lost souls who learned from the people who are teaching them error.”

That’s exactly right, Wayne. Our church leaders are far more culpable than the deceivers they allow to have influence and authority in the SDA church.

If EGW was alive, she would kick their “spiritual butts” out of the church and oppose and expose the duplicity in no uncertain terms.

Even when Dr. Kellogg was the White’s friend, it did not influence them to patronize his book “Living Temple” in the name of “academic freedom”. She expose his false doctrine and stated his name in doing so. And finally, Wayne, you are equally correct when you stated…..

“When I came into the truth that the Adventist church taught back in the ’70′s, I made a committment to the truth in the Bible not the church, and I, today will stand on the truth of the scriptures, not what the “church” teaches, or any educational institution. One is to compare what the truth is by the scriptures…..”

“There is NO fence sitting. Either you are on the side of Christ or the side of the devil. There is no middle ground.”

When the gospel is not defined in its true biblical context, the result is exactly what we see in the church today.

Keep the faith.

Bill Sorensen

A “Christian Agnostic”?
Yes, “Friend” is used in the bible by the way of sarcasm on several occasions. So, Jesus called Judas “friend” and the king asks, “Friend, how comest in here without a wedding garment.” No doubt other places may be found in this same context.

How patronizing and “kind” of Ken to “turn the other cheek.”

No true believer should be fooled by his duplicity. Nor his self proclaimed condecending attitude toward a Christian.

Like Father Jim on the spectrum forum who assures all who will listen that his church is totally innocent of any and all the religious crimes of the past.

And it is only bigoted Protestantism that would accuse his church of such terrible activities. And he receives many “amens” from more than a few deluded individuals who hold his same sentiment. Not a few claiming to be loyal bible believing SDA’s.

No doubt the devil can project an attitude of love and good fellowship when it suits his purpose as he infilterates the Protestant community with an attitude of good will.

But let me remind any and all who will listen and carefully consider what Jesus clearly said.

“He who is not for me, is against me.”

There is no neutral ground. There are no agnostic Christians. And agnostics are typical of the wishy-washy attitudes of unbelievers who project an air of open mindedness that is far from the reality.

Rather, it is an excuse for unbelief with a self justifying attitude that if only someone could show them with undeniable evidence, they too would believe.

I could consider Ken a “friend” in my neighborhood. A civil attitude based on civil righteousness. But he is no “friend” to my religion nor the bible.

I have many “friends” who are not Christians. But they don’t come to my church expressing doubt, skepticism, and unbelief.

I trust that at least some of you see and know the difference.

Bill Sorensen

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…]

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.