What you have posted is correct, James. But in most …

Comment on La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation by Bill Sorensen.

What you have posted is correct, James. But in most cases, it is beyond the spiritual mind of most SDA church members. And because of this, few are really involved in any dynamic evaluation of the present spirituality of the SDA church.

“Unconditional election for the church” is a powerful tool that all churches use to hold members in subjection to church authority even when false doctrine is advocated.

So when Luther challenged Staupitz, his spiritual mentor, on this issue, Staupitz could only say, “I can not choose to destroy my church.” Even when he knew Luther was right. And Erasmus followed suit when he said to Luther, “Don’t compromise me with your doctrine and teaching.” He did not want anyone to know he agreed with Luther.

Many individuals wanted to see a spiritual reform in the church but were not ready to stand for truth if it required a cross to do so. When it is assumed that loyalty to the church is, ipso facto, loyalty to Christ, we will always see the result that is manifested in modern Adventism. Unity becomes the final cry and all discent is put down no matter the reason or cause.

“The temple of the Lord are we, the temple of the Lord are we” breeds apostacy. So, ignorance and superstition reign as people bow to the false god of church loyalty and abandon the bible. The situation at LSU is only the tip of the ice berg and we can expect more of the same on many more issues as they surface here and there in the church community.

” For years the church has been looking to man, and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered.”–Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91-93. (1896) {Ev 191.3}

Never was a statement more descriptive of the SDA church as it is today. “The church will decide” or “The church has decided” is how many if not most view every doctrinal issue confronting the church today. In it’s final definition, it is nothing more than Roman Catholic theology. And lazy church members are more than happy to agree to this theory. But it won’t create the final bible Christian community and far more will be lost than saved who are now members of the SDA church.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation
Beatrice, had it not been for David Read and others like him, LSU would still be doing “business as usual”.

It is more than obvious that church leadership will always do “business as usual” and never correct and discipline itself unless someone actually challenges their actions and demands accountability.

So, some of us appreciate what David Read and other have done, and are still doing, to inform church members of the evil duplicity of many who hold high levels of influence and authority in our schools and other areas of church leadership.

In fact, you, and others who think like you, are the very ones who not only lead the church into apostacy, but agree and support those who do.

Meaning what? Had not David Read and other demanded accountability, we can know and be certain that nothing would have been done either now or in the future. And the measures they have taken to correct the situation are commendable, but hardly adequate to solve the real issue and how deeply it is rooted not only in this situation at LSU, but the whole denomination.

And finally, why was there no “open disclosurer” in the Review or other means of communication to the whole church community concerning this evil at LSU? I’ll tell you why. The church will never admit it has done anything wrong, but when it is so blatantly obvious, will endeavor to (not correct) but modify the situation in the hopes that the problem will “be swept under the rug” and eventually ignored by the vast majority.

You are way out of line to chide David and others for their honest work in exposing LSU and other things that are destroying bible Adventism at a pace compared with the speed of the “lightenings of Ezekiel.”

Hopefully, others are learning more and more their obligations and accountability as church members concerning this and other evils allowed and endorsed in Adventism today.

Keep the faith.


La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation
“In such an hour as ye think not”, is used by EGW to show that our names will come up in judgment at a time when we are not ready because we refused to heed the warning to get ready for His coming.

So, while the actual coming of Jesus is a true biblical application of the phrase, it has a real dynamic meaning in light of the close of probation and the final judgment that preceeds this event.

As a church, we still talk about the second coming regularly. But we seldom mention the close of probation and final atonement for the true Christian community. This event is the dynamic of the SDA message and mission. If a person is not ready for the close of probation, they will not be ready for the second coming. Yet we skip this first event and its dynamic judgment by the law, and advocate grace as all you have to do is “believe” and you are ready for Jesus to come.

And this is why we have so much apostacy and liberal doctrine and teaching in the church today. A fair question may well be, “Can the SDA church become the final antichrist movement?” We must seriously consider the possibility and even the likelihood and certainty of it unless we see some real responsible spiritual movement in the leadership of our church.

God’s means of grace by way of a church has consistently abandon the truth in the end, and always been the worst opposer of God and His kingdom. Why should we conclude the SDA movement is exempt from this possiblity? This, in fact, is why we are in such a deplorable spiritual state today.

Keep the faith


La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation
We can talk about it from now on. Unless we can think of something positive and constructive to deal with the situation, it has become an exercise in futility that has no final benefit.

If anyone has an idea, I am listening. Something besides “don’t pay tithe or give offerings.” This may be a viable option, but it is not likely to change anything since they get plenty of money by way of other sources.

We can encourage each other in the faith. And this is helpful, and maybe all we can do for now. At least some of us know that what is happening and continues to happen is not acceptable nor does it represent what we believe, or our historic faith. Neither can we expect our leaders to “man up” spiritually and do their duty according to the “job description”.

If an individual accepts a position in the church, they should have a commitment to do what the position requires, or, not accept the position. This is not the case. And part of the reason is this. Those who would actually do what is needful, are not asked nor given a position to act in harmony with the situation. Those in authority ask “me too, yes people” to take various positions. And if they don’t fit this description, they are not asked nor allowed to hold any office.

At any rate, it seems apparent “the church” is in a rapid decline in spirituality, and only some miracle of God will stop the snowball effect of all this apostacy.

WDYT?


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