Ron said in response to my post….. “I see the tolerance …

Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Bill Sorensen.

Ron said in response to my post…..

“I see the tolerance of the liberals to be god like and the intolerance of the conservatives to be evil. So to me, Educate Truth represents an effort to destroy community and is wrong. I think it totally misrepresents the character of god.”

Of course, in this we disagree, Ron. What you call “the tolerance of the liberals” is the ground work for total intolerance.

So you support the idea that the church has no mandate to define itself and discipline those who claim to be members by dis-fellowshipment. And this you will not “tolerate” as a liberal. Discipline is not tolerated by a liberal. Even within the sphere of any given government or authority.

So, according to your theory, parents can not discipline their children. Civil law can not discipline members of society. And a church can not discipline its members either.

Your whole theory is anti-law, anti-government. Zero discipline. No one is answerable to anyone or anything and everyone should be allowed to teach whatever they please, and do as they please.

We are free, Ron. In that we can join a church or not. We can free ourselves from any government control if we can find a place on this earth where there is no civil government. We can even abandon the family if we don’t like the rules of the house.

But we are not “free” to claim we are a church member which gives us license to do and teach and act as we please without considering the possibility that we may be disciplined if we are out of harmony with the organization and/or oppose it.

What you want is “irresponsible freedom” that is no part of common sense, nor is it in harmony with God’s kingdom and government. It is the same theory Satan offers the human family in the name of the so-called “gospel” being advocated in much of modern Adventism.

What God offers us is “responsible freedom” that demands accountability within the framework of His stated authority and government. And this is the same “freedom” the church offers if and when it parallels God’s kingdom.

As a side note, we should oppose any “conservative” government that claims authority outside its given boundries.

One family can not impose rules on another family. One government can not impose rules on another civil government. And no church can impose rules outside their own jurisdiction and given authority.

This is where Rome goes totally outside their boundries of authority and claim authority to discipline the whole world in the name of the church. They don’t just dis-fellowship people, they kill them.

They claim the authority to “judge” who can go to heaven and who can’t. (St. Peter at the gate.) They do have a right to “judge” who can be a member of their church. But not take authority that only belongs to God and decide who is finally fit for heaven and who is not.

Just so, Ron, the SDA church has a right to define its doctrine and teaching and discipline and/or fire anyone it decides is no longer in harmony with its stated goals and teaching.

In this, you apparently disagree, claiming “irresponsible freedom” for any and all church members to do and teach as they please, even if and when they are paid by the denomination.

I think this is an inane conclusion and I think more than a few would agree with me.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
Holly said to Ron….

“If God’s primary concern is community and tolerance, why will He destroy countless individuals and not allow them “community” with others, as is described at Christ’s Second Coming?”

And I might add to Holly’s comment, “How is it we expect people in other denominations (communities) to actually abandon their community for the sake of loyalty to Christ?”

We expect others to make “difficult” decisions for Jesus and accept the cross in their personal experience. But not SDA’s. And I think this applies especially to our leaders in their responsibility in governing and identifying the church.

Hopefully, we all have some awareness of continual cross bearing as SDA Christians in our individual lives.

The devil is offering the world a “crossless” religion and I think more than a few SDA’s are buying into it.

We would all like to think it is possible, but it is not possible in this life. In which case, we must all consider our “responsible freedom” a privledge and duty that will surely cost us something to remain loyal to our Savior.

“I”m OK, you’re OK” is no part of bible Christanity.

Bill Sorensen


Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
Bob said…..

“I have also noticed a bit of a lib intolerance over at the spectrum – where they will at times ban those who post in favor of the Bible. Particularly if the lib response to those posts are sooo embarrassing for the owners of the web site that they cannot afford to have their own liberal methods and shallow thinking exposed so fully because it starts their own liberal readership thinking that maybe the liberal model is not the panacea it was cracked up to be.”

This is exactly right, Bob. They “tolerate” no real challenge to their agenda or their theology.

Their so called “supporting ministry” could be equated to Lucifer’s “supporting ministry” to God’s kingdom in heaven.

The main thrust of Spectrum is to undermine bible Adventism. Beginning with EGW and ending with the bible itself.

But my main objection is not Spectrum, but our leadership who not only tolerates but patronizes and supports the ministry and its influence by allowing them a booth at the GC sessions. As they do A-today and no doubt other non-SDA ministries.

This pluralism agenda supported by our church is far more responsible for its demise than the apostate ministries they allow. It has created the total Babylon confusion we are dealing with including this evolution/creation discussion.

I have seen whole families simply walk out of the church and keep Sunday because of this apostate leadership who allow false doctrine that is deceiving people more and more. Once the real and full implication of what is being taught finally dawns on more and more people, we will soon see a mass exodus of not a few here and there, but hundreds or even thousands leave the church.

So let me ask a simply question, “If we don’t have to keep the law to be saved, as the church teaches continually, why would anyone keep the Sabbath if and when it involved a real cross?”

Obviously, they won’t. Nor any other law they find inconvenient and cuts across their carnal minds and desires.

So, the bible is being set aside by more and more professed SDA’s as we see demonstrated by the abandonment of the biblical account of creation. For it should be clear that if we don’t have to keep the law to be saved, neither do we have to believe the bible to be saved.

It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see the obvious implications and conclusions to such a theology. But, I suppose if many angels in heaven were deceived by this theory in one form or another, sinful beings like ourselves are even more inclined to fall for it. After all, this is what the whole liberal movement is about, isn’t it?

Bill Sorensen


Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
Many would assume that what God allows and could prevent, He is responsible for.

How do we reconcile this issue….

“You see, the problem of free will comes into play…

This is the advantage that the SDA perspective of the “Great Controversy” brings to the world. It helps explain the balance between the freewill of God’s sons and daughters and God’s will.”

Sean Pitman

We could perceive that God makes beings with a “free will” and then requires accountability of how it is used. But God did not choose for any created being to sin. All we can say is that God created the possibility of sin, not sin itself.

The only way God would be responsible for sin is if He created beings without the ability to sin or not. And this is Lucifer’s argument.

If moral beings have intelligence to discern what is good and bad, and if they can discern the implications of their decisions, then it would follow that no created being would ever choose to sin.

If sin results in a bad choice, it would be because the individual did not know the outcome, or could not discern the implications of the choice.

If so, then God is responsible for sin because He created beings who could not discern the outcome of their choice, and therefore, could not be held accountable for their choice.

In which case, sin is never rebellion, it is only based on ignorance. We have to consider if this is true or not. And our attitude toward God will be dependent on the conclusion we draw by the evidence we consider.

Do created beings have enough understanding and knowledge to be held accountable for their actions? Can God “judge” anyone based on sufficient understanding of His will and the ability to do it?

Is sin rebellion, or simply ignorance?

For a believing Christian, the answer is “yes”, God can hold us accountable for our decisions and actions, and we concur that sin is not simply ignorance, but willful rebellion and a deliberate choice to oppose God and His kingdom.

We also acknowledge that there is always some degree of ignorance in our decisions, but not to the point we can plead this factor in judgment and avoid accountability for our decisions and actions.

When we understand the issue, we can see why Lucifer always claimed he was not in rebellion but was only acting out his preception of the situation.

But there came a point in his process of reasoning, that he knew his conclusions were faulty and that he was wrong. Now his continued activity is far more than speculation based on ignorance, it is blatant rebellion based on pride.

If you read EGW’s comments on this issue in the Great Controversy, you will see the point.

With this in mind, we can know that at some point, all human beings have some adequate knowledge to know right and wrong as the Holy Spirit works in the life and they preceive what choice they must make. And so all are culpable in some context for their moral and/or immoral actions.

Ultimately, people are not lost because of ignorance of God and His will. They will be lost based on rebellion and deliberate rejection of truth about God and His kingdom. Even the rejection of accountability will be considered rebellion on some level in God’s judgment.

So Paul says, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked……” God knows the difference between ignorance and rebellion and He will judge accordingly.

Bill Sorensen


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