John Mark said….. “Ken, FB#6 is definitely officially approved doctrine.” Technically, there …

Comment on Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6 by Bill Sorensen.

John Mark said…..

“Ken, FB#6 is definitely officially approved doctrine.”

Technically, there is no “officially approved doctrine” in the SDA church. If you check your copy of the Fundamental beliefs, you will find a dis-claimer of this assertion in the front of the book.

What we have is a generally accepted concensus statement that we would hope most if not all loyal SDA’s would agree to.

Part of the problem is because we have no such creed. This can be both positive and negative. Positive, in the sense we are always testing our understanding by the word and seeking a clearer perspective.

Negative, because it can lend itself to “Pluralism” where anybody and every body can claim special enlightenment and present their view as superior to the concensus statement.

Liberals thrive on pluralism. In which case, no one can discipline anyone else and all can claim academic freedom.

It creates a mess, doesn’t it? But God knows how to “force” people to admit they are and have abandon the bible. And in the end, this is our singular creed.

“The bible is our only rule of faith and practice.”

This is the heart and soul of any true Protestant confession of faith. And God will create a community of believers who hold this confession of faith, and they will be the only ones ready when Jesus comes. The rest will all eventually embrace “the beast” (man’s kingdom) as opposed to God’s kingdom.

God forced Pharoah’ hand, the Jewish leaders hands, Rome’s hand and all denied the true faith. And God can and will do the same in the end.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6
We see that well meaning people are often deceived and used by the devil to advance his agenda.

So, Peter said to Jesus after Jesus had explained the cross in His experience….

“Far be it from thee….” and Jesus said..
“Get thee behind me Satan.”

None of us want to be used by Satan (at least I hope not). Yet all of us are suseptible to his deceptions and what may appear to us as advantageous in advancing God’s kingdom, may well be the opposite.

The early church changed the day of worship. They did not sit down and ask, “How can we come up with an idea that will oppose God’s kingdom and decieve the people?”

What they did was wrong. But they thought it was right. This whole modern scenario in the SDA church is a perfect parallel to the early church apostacy. Human speculation and reasoning take the place of biblical revelation all in the name of what is defined as “the gospel”.

So, the early church changed the day of worship in the name of “love and the gospel” and felt sure it was God’s will. And in the end, they finally concluded the leading of the Holy Spirit in the church community transcended the written word.

And finally concluded, the church was infallible, since the Holy Spirit was infallible and would not allow them to make a mistake. So, they would tell us, the church did not really make the change, it was the Holy Spirit, and they simply followed His direction. But the whole theory is bogus. The Holy Spirit will not make us do what is right. Either by force or even some divine revelation apart from the bible.

Modern Adventism is departing from the bible and advocating spiritual delusions akin to the early church.

Protestantism gave us the bible, with the confession that the bible was sufficiently clear to make known the truth of God concerning the gospel and God’s will for the human family.

We see in the creation/evolution dialogue, one of the main arguments of those who oppose creation is that the bible is not sufficiently clear so we can trust its declarations. We must trust science and other evidence, and if science and other evidence conflicts with the clear declarations of scripture, we must assume the bible is not clear enough, or reliable to inform us concerning the truth of the matter.

Once this agenda is “sold” to the church community, there is no stopping place, is there? Any conflict can not and will not be resolved by a biblical declaration, but by human reason and speculation, with the affirmation that the Holy Spirit is leading to sound conclusions, even if it contradicts the bible.

Same as Rome. By the way, Rome endorses a qualified evolution contrary to the bible.

All this undermines individual human accountability as well. We must confess “the church” is being led by the Spirit, and we must come into conformity to church mandates and any challenge is considered rebellion against church leadership and church authority. Not to mention the need for unity at all cost.

And unity it is, “at all cost”. For truth is sacrificed and the bible undermined and individual accountability set aside in the name of “unity.”

And yes, Faith, this whole agenda is being “sold” to new pastors and new converts to the point the words of Jesus have a clear application to the SDA church today….

“You travel all over the world to make a convert, and when he is converted, you make him two more times the servant of hell than yourselves.”

But, if we love Jesus and His kingdom, we will not “get in, sit down, hang on and shut up.”

This is what they want you and me and everyone else who would challenge their apostacy and false doctrines to do.

We won’t yield, we won’t give up, and we will continue to demand accountability of ourselves individually, and the whole church corporately. We intend by God’s grace to…..

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6
Faith said…..

“I do not accept or tolerate the new theology that has entered our church and I can’t wait for all this rubbish to be swept out of our church and get back to the true doctrines established by the Lord.”

You know I agree, Faith. Sometimes I doubt if this can or will happen in light of the fact that historically, when the devil gets a firm grip on any God given movement, he hangs on until it is so corrupt, it can not be restored.

Still, we can hope that the movement as God ordained it, will be visible and identifiable as “the sinners in Zion will be sifted out.” (Of course, we hope we are not one of them.)

You may remember the dream EGW recorded that William Miller had. I may well have a real application at the present time.

William Miller’s Dream
[Referred to on Page 48]

I dreamed that God, by an unseen hand, sent me a curiously wrought casket about ten inches long by six square, made of ebony and pearls curiously inlaid. To the casket there was a key attached. I immediately took the key and opened the casket, when, to my wonder and surprise, I found it filled with all sorts and sizes of jewels, diamonds, precious stones, and gold and silver coin of every dimension and value, beautifully arranged in their several places in the casket; and thus arranged they reflected a light and glory equaled only to the sun. {EW 81.2}
I thought it was not my duty to enjoy this wonderful sight alone, although my heart was overjoyed at
the brilliancy, beauty, and value of its contents. I therefore placed it on a center table in my room and gave out word that all who had a desire might come and see the most glorious and brilliant sight ever seen by man in this life. {EW 81.3}
The people began to come in, at first few in number, but increasing to a crowd. When they first looked into the casket, they would wonder and shout for joy. But when the spectators increased, everyone would begin to trouble the jewels, taking them out of the casket and scattering them on the table. {EW 82.1}
I began to think that the owner would require the casket and the jewels again at my hand; and if I suffered them to be scattered, I could never place them in their places in the casket again as before; and felt I should never be able to meet the accountability, for it would be immense. I then began to plead with the people not to handle them, nor to take them out of the casket; but the more I pleaded, the more they scattered; and now they seemed to scatter them all over the room, on the floor and on every piece of furniture in the room. {EW 82.2}
I then saw that among the genuine jewels and coin they had scattered an innumerable quantity of spurious jewels and counterfeit coin. I was highly incensed at their base conduct and ingratitude, and reproved and reproached them for it; but the more I reproved, the more they scattered the spurious jewels and false coin among the genuine. {EW 82.3}
I then became vexed in my physical soul and began to use physical force to push them out of the room; but while I was pushing out one, three more would enter and bring in dirt and shavings and sand and all manner of rubbish, until they covered every one of the true jewels, diamonds, and coins, which were all excluded from sight. They also tore in pieces my casket
and scattered it among the rubbish. I thought no man regarded my sorrow or my anger. I became wholly discouraged and disheartened, and sat down and wept. {EW 82.4}
While I was thus weeping and mourning for my great loss and accountability, I remembered God, and earnestly prayed that He would send me help. {EW 83.1}
Immediately the door opened, and a man entered the room, when the people all left it; and he, having a dirt brush in his hand, opened the windows, and began to brush the dirt and rubbish from the room. {EW 83.2}
I cried to him to forbear, for there were some precious jewels scattered among the rubbish. {EW 83.3}
He told me to “fear not,” for he would “take care of them”. {EW 83.4}
Then, while he brushed the dirt and rubbish, false jewels and counterfeit coin, all rose and went out of the window like a cloud, and the wind carried them away. In the bustle I closed my eyes for a moment; when I opened them, the rubbish was all gone. The precious jewels, the diamonds, the gold and silver coins, lay scattered in profusion all over the room. {EW 83.5}
He then placed on the table a casket, much larger and more beautiful than the former, and gathered up the jewels, the diamonds, the coins, by the handful, and cast them into the casket, till not one was left, although some of the diamonds were not bigger than the point of a pin. {EW 83.6}
He then called upon me to “come and see.” {EW 83.7}
I looked into the casket, but my eyes were dazzled with the sight. They shone with ten times their former glory. I thought they had been scoured in the sand by the feet of those wicked persons who had scattered and trod them in the dust. They were arranged in beautiful order in the casket, every one in its place, without any visible pains of the man who cast them in. I shouted with very joy, and that shout awoke me. {EW 83.8}

Faith, I hope and believe the dream has a special relevance to what has happened and is happening in our church today. And in the near future, God will take things into His own hands and restore all that we know is true and discard all the false ideas and doctrines so scattered and corrupting to the faith God established by way of William Miller and our pioneers.

Many are frustrated, including myself, by the events and teachings that have developed over the last few decades, but I think we need to hang on, at least for now, until we have clearer light on how to deal with the situation.

I like this dream, don’t you?

Have a great new year and keep the faith.

Your brother in the blessed hope.

Bill Sorensen

Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6
David, some of us have both watched and opposed this liberal agenda for more than 4 decades.

The “Brinsmead Awakening” was the first serious challenge to liberalism in the chuch. He fluctuated around for a period of time and eventually sided with the liberals himself.

Being an honest individual, he could see the obvious implications of the Ford movement that he had opposed, and when he “joined” this agenda, he also abandon EGW and bible Adventism.

Ford and many of his followers, didn’t abandon the church, only the church doctrines and teaching. It was Ford’s agenda to change church doctrines. And so his followers have the same agenda.

Ford attack EGW, so do his followers. I mention this because we need to see that Brinsmead and his final decision is also the final outcome of all who embrace the liberal agenda.

So, those who first attack EGW and bible Adventism, will eventually follow in Bob Brinsmead’s footsteps. Today, he freely admits he does not believe the bible.

So, Ford and all his spiritual followers will eventually admit the same. This evolution/creation discussion is only the obvious outcome of the Dr. Ford spirituality.

Anytime the gospel is used to undermine the law, we can know it is a false gospel. This false gospel has come into the church like a flood and we see the outcome of it in many ways. The celebration movement, Pluralism, and the eccumenical spirit is now the major influence in Adventism.

Like the rebellion in heaven, we can only wait until its fruit is so obvious that any and all honest individuals can readily see the error of it and oppose it and refuse to support it.

Small wonder EGW has well said….

” Soon God’s people will be tested by fiery trials, and the great proportion of those who now appear to be genuine and true will prove to be base metal. . . .” {LDE 180.3}

Followed by this observation….

” This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.–2SM 380 (1886). {LDE 180.5}
As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have
not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition.”–GC 608 (1911). {LDE 180.6}

The shaking will surely intensify more and more. But we must necessarily wait until what is more than obvious to some of us will become transparently obvious to all who desire to be loyal to God and His kingdom.

Historically, God’s true church has always become the center of the antichrist movement. It is happening again. But God has a way of “forcing” the enemies of truth to expose and declare themselves openly. It happened in heaven. And again and again in history. It will surely happen again in the SDA church of today.

But, like the loyal angels in heaven, we must patiently wait until the obvious is clearly made known and all make their final choice.

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