Sean, we must make a distinction between evidence to validate …

Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by Bill Sorensen.

Sean, we must make a distinction between evidence to validate the bible specifically, and scientific evidence to prove God created the world.

So, are you intent on “proving” by science that God created the world, or, are you endeavoring to give scientific evidence that the bible is true?

Bible prophecy is validated by way of the historical process in light of on going time. Is this “falsifiable” evidence? I would think so.

The Christian intent for a Protestant is to give all the evidence possible to validate scripture. In which case, scripture validates itself for what it teaches.

But science doesn’t prove a nickels worth that God created anything. Science, like the “schoolmaster” in Galatians, leads us to seek some viable answer to creation. But science gives us no answer in and of itself. It gives us a problem with no answer within itself.

Evolution claims science in and of itself can and will give us an answer as to origins. No way. And so I said, “Neither can science prove God created the world.”

No evolutionist will ever look to the bible for an answer as long as they feel they can find the answer within science itself. And any effort to prove God created the world by way of science is an exercise in futility.

So, I said, “We don’t play their game based on their rules.” But it seems like you think you can.

So, my question to you is this, “Do you want to use science to point to the bible as the only answer, or do you think by way of science you can prove origins?”

I don’t know if anyone has really been able to follow your thinking on this matter and there is still apparent confusion that leads to endless dialogue with little or no clarification.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean said…..

“Evidence does not trump faith and faith does not trump evidence. Each is dependent upon the other.”

And this is where at least some of us disagree, Sean. You can not present any “falsifiable” evidence that God created this world in six days and rested the seventh. And some of us fear you are backing yourself into a corner you can not get out of.

Unlike evolution that claims they can “prove” by science what they believe, we as Christians make no such claim. And our basic argument against evolution is neither can they “prove” what they claim either.

Their so-called evidence of proof is nothing but off the wall conjecture that can not be proven by any rational clear reasoning scientist. And those who are less prejudiced admit it.

Neither do we play their game by claiming we can prove God created the world. The best evidence we can produce is bible prophecy, not science.

So we can argue about the flood, or rocks and trees and a thousand other unreliable evidences of exactly how this world came into being and never prove any final conclusion.

Our final argument is this, they can’t prove evolution and we don’t intend to try and prove the biblical account by science.

In which case, it is a matter of faith no matter which side you want to stand on.

We won’t play their game on their ground by their rules. This is what Eve did, and look where it got her and all the rest of us by way of Adam.

Bill Sorensen

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Heb. 11:3 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

Where does Paul appeal to science in his affirmation of how God created the worlds?

Bill Sorensen

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
After reading the statement on creation by the church, and then the rest of the chapter that explains the statement, I don’t see how there could be any mis-understanding of the church position on the matter.

I suppose if you make a definitive enough statement, then there would be no need for any commentary on it.

So, I am not sure any “re-statement” is even necessary. The commentary makes it plain what the statement means.

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.