Well, Sean, you have been more tolerant than most forums …

Comment on Christians and the Sabbath by Bill Sorensen.

Well, Sean, you have been more tolerant than most forums and discussion groups. I understand your point, but you miss mine. Some day you will see the point that many SDA teachers either ignore or explain in some way that is not biblical. But one fact remains. The SDA church has never been a mature community of bible believers and thus we have many different views about some basic issues that will never allow the church to be in unity.

A couple of articles at ADvindicate are classic of the confusion. The book Questions on Doctrine made some good points, but also implied some false ideas and this book seems to be the focal point of the two basic theologies that have created the two major groups in theology in the church today. I don’t agree completely with either side and see the liberals fighting the conservatives and visa versa and both wrong. The only winner in this fiasco has been the devil as he has successfully divided the church for his own benefit.

At least you let me post. Something neither the liberals or conservatives will do. So Atoday and Spectrum have banned me. But so has Advindicate and Fulcrum 7. I am free to comment in the readers section of the on-line Review. So maybe the church is still more open to discussion than the two major forums. Even though I disagree with many positions in the Review, they are more “Protestant” in spirit than the independent forums who are more like a cult than a real Christian discussion group.

Thanks again for your tolerance. People will have to consider both positions and compare with the bible to make a decision. And as I said, your defense of the Sabbath is flawless and the opposition is so far outside the bible we could wonder how they could even claim to believe scripture. I still believe any flaw in our thinking about salvation will be an avenue Satan can and will use to destroy our faith. We see it reflected in those who butcher up the bible to attack the Sabbath. They obviously have a false theology that leads them to their faulty spirituality. It is always a misunderstanding of the covenants in parallel and contrast that leaves them confused. No one is more misunderstood than Paul and his basic foundation for all his exhortations. But then, as Peter said, the same people wrest the whole bible and not just Paul.
Take care.
Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Christians and the Sabbath
If we understand that the real problem in the human mind is guilt, we can better analyse the various ideas people come up with to deal with this problem that afflicts and plagues humanity since the fall of Adam.

It is really quit simple. We can either accept the bible solution that God has ordained and articulated in scripture, or we can make up some idea of our own that releases us from the affliction of guilt. The sinful mind don’t really like God’s solution and prefers one of its own. God’s solution requires affliction, temptation, suffering and cross bearing to deal with the sin problem in ourselves as we comprehend the true meaning of the cross where Jesus “paid it all” to merit salvation and now we must go through a parallel experience to understand and learn the lesson that cures the sin issue once and for all in the end. This is the bible way and God’s way that we can deal with guilt and have the law remain in full effect while we appropriate grace in the ongoing restoration.

But the delusion of Satan is simpler and more appealing to the carnal mind. That is, do away with the law and now no guilt is possible. This is the system Kerry Wynne and his theological buddies prefer and most of the world will opt for in the end. It is the mother of “The Mark of the Beast” which is simply the mind of Satan the world embraces that is demonstrated in the Sabbath/Sunday controversy that will intensify and culminate to its final end just before Jesus comes.

We would do well to carefully evaluate the various ideas Satan is advocating in the SDA community to see if they really fit God’s agenda according to scripture, or, if they parallel and emulate the theory that Kerry Wynne advocates in his on going delusion to escape guilt and condemnation. While Sean is correctly showing how they misuse the bible and other writing to support their false delusion, when we see the foundation of the delusion itself and the principle that stimulates it, and why they advocate this false idea to avoid guilt, we can more easily reject the whole theory of the matter and re-affirm the God ordained system to deal with guilt and still keep the law in full force while offering us grace by way of the cross.

Kerry Wynne advocates a crossless religion with no law of God. The Sabbath is simply the issue they use to attack the principle of God’s kingdom and establish the kingdom of darkness. They see themselves as the “highly spiritually enlightened community” and scorn true bible faith and obedience as legalism and accuse the SDA message given by EGW as some cult that attacks the gospel. The “cult” is themselves who represent this world wide movement that is embracing every religion in the world, and opting to eliminate any and all controversy by removing any specific details to define true faith. Sad to say, much of modern Adventism is “all in” for this agenda and we see it in the spirituality of Atoday and Spectrum. They remove guilt by taking away the law, the true believer deals with guilt by upholding the law and fleeing to the cross.

If they advocate Christ on any level, it is this, Christ died and did away with the law. It may seem subtle to some who have not carefully evaluated what is being taught. But surely the fruit of their ministries should be enough evidence to expose their false spirituality as they embrace sin without guilt and advocate blatant evil like the Gay agenda as an acceptable norm in the Christian community. Thus, Atoday and Spectrum are “all in” for Kerry Wynne’s theology and doctrine, even if they don’t necessarily use the same format Kerry uses.


Christians and the Sabbath
“. Fear of God and His judgment has been replaced with ever-increasing love for Him … Adventism is a more dangerous cult than ever.”

This certainly reflects the spirituality of Spectrum and Atoday. And it is gendered by a false understanding of law and gospel in its true biblical context even in the SDA church. The church has opted for a doctrine of law and gospel that is outside the biblical norm. Many still keep the Sabbath in spite of this false teaching that genders the result stated in this quote. Thus, it is only a matter of time before thousands abandon the Sabbath for the same reason stated here.

When you tell people they don’t have to keep the law to be saved, it may take awhile before they put 2 and 2 together, but when they do, they embrace this statement above. It is the only logical and viable conclusion. Namely this, “if I don’t have to keep the law to be saved, neither do I have to keep the law to remain saved.” Thus, the law has no salvation function on any level. And it is only one short step to abandon the Sabbath.

What we must understand is this. There is a sense in which we must keep the law to be saved. And in another context, there is a sense in which we don’t. We only articulate the context in which we don’t, and never affirm the context in which we do. And thus the church has lost its dynamic in evangelism especially here in the USA.

So we don’t keep the law to merit and earn heaven and/or pay for our sins to be saved. But we do keep the law as a moral imperative to obtain a fitness for heaven and thus we “keep the law to be saved.” Saved from what? The curse and wrath of God against all ungodliness and sin. No one is “saved” unless they are “saved from sin”. And “sin is transgression of the law”.

Neither will God “force” anyone to abandon sin and keep His law. It is the believing sinner who repents and obeys and keeps the law and thus avoids the wrath of God. He does not “pay” for his sins by this activity. Jesus did that. So there are two factors in salvation. A divine factor whereby the Father and Son covenanted together to “pay” the penalty of sin, and now the sinner who accepts this atonement, repents and obeys the law, the human factor, is saved.

The devil’s goal is to negate the human factor on any level in our relationship with God, that keeps us free from condemnation. And he persuaded Adam and Eve there was no human factor that maintained a “saved” relationship with God. He was a liar then and still is today. Adam and Eve did not need to repent because they were created in a right relationship with God in the garden. All they had to do was retain that relationship by obedience and loyalty to God.

We, on the other hand, are not Adam and Eve in the garden. We are lost sinners who must repent and accept the atonement as the first step, and then continue to maintain that relationship as Adam and Eve should have done in the garden by continual obedience to the will of God. Faith and repentance are just as much a part of obedience as the ongoing submission to God’s will. So we are saved by faith, repentance and obedience to the law of God. And the human factor in salvation has not be negated as the false gospel stated in the sentence above.

He may think he is “free from the law” but in fact, is in total bondage to sin and the principle of sin that Satan sold Adam and Eve in the garden. The same delusion Satan sold Adam and Eve is the one the world embraces today, and not a few SDA’s embrace this same false spirituality that will abandon the Sabbath just like this false confession of faith. He may be free from guilt in his own delusional mind, but he is not free from guilt as defined by the law and the mind of God.


Christians and the Sabbath
Sean, we are born legally cut off and morally depraved. If you don’t believe that, then you will formulate some theory that contradicts this bible truth.

As soon as a baby is born, the Holy Spirit begins to draw them to Christ by every means of grace that God has ordained for their salvation. If their parents are Christian, they have an advantage over those who’s parents are not. None the less, God will use every avenue available to communicate bible truth so they can choose to opt in to the kingdom of grace He has ordained for lost sinners.

This is bible truth and it is not negotiable or subject to human speculation. We either accept it or reject it. If we reject it, then we are born lost, and remain lost. That’s the long and short of it.


Recent Comments by Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” That’s what I’ve been saying (and what Morris Venden and MacCarty have been saying)”

Well, I did not do a complete search on all the MacCarty says or believes. But in the case of Venden, I did do such a study and Venden had a doctrine of “sanctification by faith alone” that was totally outside the bible teaching.

“Faith alone” by definition means we play no part in it. If so, it is not “faith alone”. But Venden’s view of sanctification was definitely “faith alone” and we play no part in it but believe. At any rate, there is more confusion than bible definition in his definition of sanctification, and I think this applies to MacCarty as well. Like I said, I read his book a couple years ago and it was circular with no real definition of what he meant.

But basically, he equated the old covenant with legalism which is bogus. We agree a misapplication of the old covenant is not the same thing as a clear understanding of the old covenant and its purpose. So let’s not take a misapplication of the old covenant, and then claim this is the old covenant.

As you have defended the Sabbath against a misapplication of the new covenant and not called it the new covenant we must do the same with the old covenant. Our conclusion should be that a misapplication of any truth does not equate to the truth that is being misapplied. The confusion continues on many levels in the SDA community today.

Your defense of creation against the liberal agenda is a classic illustration of how the liberal agenda misapplies the new covenant on every level from false teaching to simply denying the bible outright. And all this from a misapplication of the new covenant that creates a false “spirit ethic” that takes the place of the bible and the ten commandments.

I appreciate the dialogue. Some may see the point eventually and some never will. Since we don’t know who’s who in this context, we leave it up to God to sort out the various issues and determine who “gets it” and who don’t.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

I never said any such thing or even suggested it. Did you even read what I wrote. If so, you decided to impute to me something I never said or suggested. Let’s at least try to be objective in our evaluation of what the other person said.

I said the Holy Spirit liberates the will and by the power of the Holy Spirit, we can choose to believe, repent and obey. How then is this your false claim that I think “You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

You rightly point out that without the Holy Spirit, we have no way to know God’s will, let alone do it. And yes, Jesus “puts enmity between sinful beings and the kingdom of Satan.”

But “putting the enmity by Christ” will save no one until and unless they choose to respond in the God ordained way He has stated in the bible. Each individual must choose to first accept the atonement, then repent, and then obey the law. Thus, the Holy Spirit empowers the will, but it is the sinner who must respond. And this is not “doing it on their own” as you seem to imply. Jesus said, “Without me, you can do nothing.” But as Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ which stengthenth me.”

Paul states what he can do by the power of God. And it is not God doing the believing, or repenting or obeying. It is Paul. EGW makes this very clear to refute the mystics who try to claim that Jesus or the Holy Spirit gets in them and does the willing and doing.

” While these youth were working out their own salvation, God was working in them to will and to do of his good pleasure. Here are revealed the conditions of success. To make God’s grace our own, we must act our part. The Lord does not propose to perform for us either the willing or the doing. His grace is given to work in us to will and to do, but never as a substitute for our effort. Our souls are to be aroused to co-operate. The Holy Spirit works in us, that we may work out our own salvation. This is the practical lesson the Holy Spirit is striving to teach us. “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR
August 20, 1903
Lessons From the Life of Daniel—9
This concerning Daniel and his friends.

She refutes the modern day mysticism that would destroy the will of man and interpret “Christ in you, the hope of glory” totally outside the biblical context.

But “Christ in you, the hope of glory” is the same thing reflected in the words of Paul, “For me to live is Christ.” Meaning, I love Jesus so much my whole life is dedicated to His glory and will.

Our “own works” that she refers to, are those people do outside a biblical relationship with Christ. It does not refer to the works of a true believer who conforms his life to emulate the life of Christ. Where does Skip MacCarty point out this difference?

Much, if not most of modern spirituality in Adventism is pure mysticism that convolutes the identity of Christ and the believer to the point the believer has no identity. It was highly stimulated by Morris Venden who tried to show that “faith alone” applies equally to sanctification as it does to justification. It was and is totally bogus. But it has infiltrated the church by him and others to the point that mysticism is rapidly becoming the major spirituality of the church.

You may mean well, Sean. But like so many others, you don’t take the time to carefully consider the implications of what you say nor explain it is a clear definitive way so that it fits the bible context. If the true bible position on sanctification is clearly presented, then it is obvious we “save ourselves” by the way we respond to the word of God. In which case, the law is salvational, but only in the biblical context. Simply put, we are “saved” by doing what God says and this includes faith in the atonement.

Many are so “hell bent” to avoid what they think is legalism, they wrest the scriptures to their own destruction and not only deceive themselves, but others who do not carefully consider the implications of the conclusion of their false idea and theory.

But to claim that those who reject your view think they can “do it on their own” is a false representation that prejudices others who don’t carefully follow the conversation. Having said all this, I am more than willing for anyone to explain and qualify and re-qualify as many times as necessary to make it very clear what they mean by what they say.

So I agree, sanctification is by faith, but not by “faith alone” in the same context that justification is by faith alone. Without a clear explanation, all we have is ongoing confusion on sin and salvation and the divine factor vs. the human factor in a full and complete view of what the bible teaches about the issues.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“We “work out our own salvation” by simply opening to the door the Spirit of God. That’s our only “work” to do here. That’s the only “work” we can do. The rest is beyond human power.”

Your whole theory is pure mysticism as the rest of your explanation affirms. The purpose of sanctification on the part of God is to liberate the human will for self government. It is the believing sinner who chooses to have faith and repent, and obey the law of God.

Neither is it “automatic” but by careful evaluation of the will of God and the implications of the outcome if we chose not to accept the free offer. You undermine and in the end, destroy the human factor in salvation and the moral accountability of man.

So when we are confronted by the gospel, we must choose to believe, choose to repent and choose to obey. God will not do this for us. Neither will the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the “holy motive” as He inspires and empowers us to “save ourselves” by responding to the word of God exactly as it is stated in the bible.

Much of the SDA church has opted for some mystical non-biblical explanation of the plan of salvation that has no affinity to the true teaching of the bible.

So sanctification is not “just give yourself to Jesus and He will do the rest.”

Basically, you convolute the divine factor and human factor in such a way that you end up negating the human factor altogether.

I doubt anything I would share with you would challenge your thinking, since in the past you have rejected other clear biblical concepts on sin and salvation like the doctrine of original sin. At any rate, if you post my response, perhaps one of your readers will actually see the point and consider the implications of our dialogue.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Yes, as EGW and the bible affirm, we are justified by obedience to the moral law. Not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. And this is what the Investigative judgment is all about. The word “justification” in the bible has a more comprehensive meaning than people perceive today. Like the word “atonement” and “salvation” the word “justification” has been limited to a non-biblical meaning and application that foreign to the bible and the full meaning the bible gives to these words.

And yes, we save ourselves by the way we respond to the word of God. No, we don’t save ourselves by meriting heaven and earning the favor of God. “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” Jesus

This is too plain to be misunderstood except by those who convolute the bible to support their false doctrine. No one is justified by “faith alone” except the special context used by the Reformation to oppose Rome when Rome taught legal merit in the believer’s response to the conditions for salvation.

“Faith alone” in this context was “Christ alone” who stands in the presence of God in our behalf as the meritorious cause of salvation and eternal life. This is not sanctification nor is sanctification “by faith alone” as some faulty teachers try to present and defend. Sanctification is always by faith and works on the part of the believer as we “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.”

And justification by faith in the bible, is the believer’s faith in Christ, not Christ’s faith in the believer. This subject is so confused and warped by SDA scholars it has no affinity to bible teaching and doctrine. So it is the believer’s faith in Christ that justifies. This is the whole theme of Paul and the new testament emphasis and message.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” “All that the Lord has said, we will do.” (Exodus 19:8).”

That’s right Sean. And the Lord said, “The people have well spoken there commitment.” But then added, “Oh that there was such an heart in them to do it.”

The issue was proper motivation based on a clear understanding of sin and all that this implies. God never chided them for their statement of faith but their lack of understanding the sinful human heart.

How is that any different than today in the new covenant era? How many are baptized making the same valid commitment and confession of faith only to find the difficulty of living out the Christian experience.

Neither will Jesus get into anybody and obey the law for them. The motivation will ratchet up as our understanding is increased and the love of God that motivates works in a more dynamic way with the increased knowledge.

But many assume the old covenant was a system of legalism and then contrast the new covenant as a true system of faith. This is bogus. True believers in the old covenant era trusted in Christ. These are the old covenant experience people and not Cain or anyone else in that era who either refused the offer God provided or convoluted it. So those who imply that the old covenant was in and of itself a system of legalism like MacCarty does, have a false idea of old and new covenant that is simply not biblical. And then they try to explain how in the new covenant God writes the law on our heart and not in stone.

God wrote His law on the heart of Abel, Noah, Abraham and every true believer in the old covenant era as Jesus “put enmity between Satan and man” by a revelation of the love of God in His willingness to make atonement for fallen man. The new covenant era simply means God will finish writing His law on the heart of every true believer and this is not some “new” covenant different than the old.

Only in the sense that the atonement promised in the past is now a reality in the present. And this ratchets up the motivation in harmony with the life of Jesus more fully revealed by way of the new covenant writers. It is false doctrine to present the idea that no one had the law “written on their heart” during the old covenant era. Did you ever read the words of David in the Psalms, “Create in me a new heart, and renew a right spirit within me.”?

This is not the new covenant in the old covenant era. There is no “new covenant believer” in the old covenant era. This is impossible. The new covenant is after the fact of the atonement and is based on the time element of the two covenants. The first covenant (old covenant) is based on a future event. The new covenant is based on a past event. This is the whole spirituality of Paul and repeated and affirmed in the book of Hebrews. What God had promised during the old covenant era, He has done.

There is certainly an affinity in both covenants as both are based on Jesus and His sacrifice. Everyone in heaven will have trusted in the atonement of the cross whether it was before Jesus made the atonement or after He made the atonement. Again, I say it is bogus to claim Cain represents an old covenant experience and Abel a new covenant experience. And it is equally false to claim anyone who is a legalist in the new covenant era is an old covenant experience. Namely this, the old covenant is not legalism and never was. Just because people corrupt the old covenant does not equate to claiming they were legalists by virtue of being in the old covenant era.

This is MacCarty’s error and he speaks for more than a few SDA scholars who are as confused as he is. God made no legal covenant with anyone with the exception of His Son. God’s covenant with all is based on the moral law and this is not legalism unless, like the Catholic church, you think you can merit heaven by keeping the moral law.

The moral law, like I said, is a family law and those who refuse to enter into this moral covenant to “obey and live” will never be in heaven. Children in a loving home don’t obey their parents to merit and earn the favor of their parents or earn a place in the family. None the less, they are in covenant relationship with their parents and if they rebel enough, can be disinherited, just like Adam and Eve who rebelled against the family law.

Adam and Eve in a state of sinlessness were not meriting the favor of God. Nor do the sinless angels merit the favor of God. Nor do the redeemed in heaven merit the favor of God. None the less, all are under obligation to obey the family law of God or forfeit eternal life like Adam and Eve in the garden. Love for God never releases anyone from the moral obligation to do God’s will and submit to His authority. This issue is so intense even in the SDA church that many now assume if you love God you have no obligation to obey and that you simply do God’s will because “you want to, not because you have to.” This is bogus and the lie of Satan that he advocated in heaven. We better get it straight and if not, “Spiritualism is at the door deluding the whole world.”
Bill Sorensen