Charles, they probably fear the loss of income as one …

Comment on LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department by Bill Sorensen.

Charles, they probably fear the loss of income as one major reason to the adjustment, in the hopes of securing on going support financially. And yes, there are no doubt at least some honest individuals who helped begin some correction to this deplorable situation.

We could hardly consider the issue corrected and resolved, even though some positive action is good news.

Once the devil gets a firm grip, he won’t “go home” just because a few people complain of the situation. It will require a hard fought battle and those who the authority and position to do so, must act decidedly and immeadiately.

A band aid on a severe cut will not heal the wound nor in any way be adequate in light of the damage done in the past and continuing to be done even now. It will require a wholesale house cleaning from top down, that we are not apt to see.

Bible Adventism will triumph. But not in the context of the modern spirituality.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
Those who deny the guilt of original sin advocate false doctrine.

Babies are born selfish. Yet you claim they are not sinful (full of sin) unless they act out their selfish nature.

The bible says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked…..”

But you claim this evil heart is not sin and there is no guilt or condemnation unless the individual acts out sin.

Paul says in Romans 5 that we are all condemned because of Adam’s sin. Rom. 5:12-19. But you claim we are condemned with out guilt.

David says in Ps. 58:3. “The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies.”

Being born in sin and with the spirit of evil it is more than obvious by any objective evaluation, that God Himself imputes sin and guilt to every baby born.

“Man looketh on the outward appearance, the Lord looketh on the heart.”

Your superficial view of sin and atonement is a direct attack on the need to be “born again” and undermines the atonement and it full value and meaning.

And whether the SDA church confesses the doctrine is not relevant as to whether it is true or not. The church does not define doctrine, the bible does. And as for EGW, she clearly and plainly said….

” Satan’s Power May Be Broken.–Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man’s behalf. . . . Christ’s perfect example and the grace of God are given him to enable him to train his sons and daughters to be sons and daughters of God. It is by teaching them, line upon line, precept upon precept, how to give the heart
and will up to Christ that Satan’s power is broken. {CG 475.3}”

Any clear minded and reasonable person can easily see that she knows and understand that guilt is inherited from Adam, and she don’t mean weakness and a propensity to sin in this context.

You are not fighting me, or EGW. You are challenging the bible and God Himself by a wilfull rejection of the obvious and opting for a delusion you willingly choose to believe. You must twist what is so obviously true and endorsed by EGW that responsible minded individuals will wonder why you close your mind and opt for a limited view of the atonement.

Your error is simular to the “Moral Influence Theory” that takes a part of the truth to deny the whole of it.

How true when Jesus said, “Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, and few there be which go in thereat.”

“Listen and learn.”

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
One thing we know for sure, Mark, is EGW is not writing in a vacuum. So we must consider all she wrote before knowing exactly what she meant. But in the end, it does not matter what she wrote when the bible is clear enough for anyone who wants to know the tru4th.

Gene, people have convoluted and corrupted many doctrines that in themselves are fundamentally sound and based on scripture. Namely, the law of God, the gospel, nature of man, the Trinity…..etc.

Just because a biblical concept is corrupted and misapplied, does not negate the doctrine.

Dr. Ford correctly defines the gospel, and then places his own interpretation on how it should be applied. This in no way negates his definition of the gospel itself.

And yes, sin and atonement can be somewhat difficult. Not because they are obscure, but because sinful man his a warped view of God, himself, life and briefly every concept of bible truth.

Sin has corporate implication as well as individual implications. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to see this in the bible. So when Achan sinned, the whole camp was cursed and guilty of sin before God. Why? Because Achan represented the whole community of believers and the whole nation sinned in Achan. And this principle is repeated again and again throughout scripture. None the less, we can each one escape guilt and condemnation if we confess the fact and do all we can to correct the evil.

Just so, in modern Adventism, we are all guilty of the evil in our church and if we do knowing about it, will be lost and condemned at last. So, when Adam sinned, we all sinned and are guilty because of his choice, not ours. Babies are born condemned and guilty and unless some means of grace is applied, they will be lost.

The Catholic church may be wrong in the way they deal with original sin. But they are right to understand and recognize the need of forgiveness and grace for new born babies.

Do you really think babies can go to heaven and by pass the atonement? No one by passes the atonement, not even new born babies. You state…..

“This teaching proclaimed that we sin because we are sinners, not that we are sinners because we have sinned. This teaching is a major error and is contrary to the Bible.”

In fact, this teaching is exactly what the bible teaches. “An evil tree can not bring forth good fruit.”

You view will make us like the Jews who rejected any need to be “born again” and make the SDA church a non-Christian cult. If the SDA church ever accepts your view in any “offical way”, or the teaching of Kevin Paulson, Dennis Priebe, and the late Ralph Larson, I will immeadiately ask my name to be taken off the church books and have my membership removed.

The SDA church will be nothing but a non-Christian cult and the final antichrist movement contrary to the bible and EGW, who endorses the doctrine of original sin like many other clear biblical teachings the church no longer believes, teaches, or supports.

The bible is not obscure in supporting the doctrine of original sin or the Trinity. We are born lost, guilty and condemned by way of Adam’s choice, not our own.

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
” We are guilty of the blood of Jesus because we have all deliberately and knowingly sinned against what we knew was right. It’s not like we didn’t know what we were doing. After all, there is no sin, no moral rebellion, without knowledge of the Royal Law. Sin is based on knowledge.”

You have a very limited view of sin, Sean. A new born baby knows nothing of guilt and condemnation. None the less, a new born baby is guilty of sin before the act. A new born baby is born selfish and guilty of being selfish before the baby manifests any acts of selfishness.

Just because there is no awareness of guilt does not mean no guilt is present. The spirit of sin always preceeds the act of sin. So a false motive is sin, and the act testifies to this reality.

So sin is not based on knowledge as you claim. Sin is based on transgression of the law and “the law” could care less if you have any knowledge or not of what is right and/or wrong.

People are not innocent just because they are ignorant. Not in God’s government, nor in any government of man. If and when ignorance is a factor in pardon, it is never a factor that denies guilt. Nor does ignorance affirm innocence.

It may be a part of the cause for pardon. But if ignorance equals innocence, then no pardon is necessary. There would be no need for pardon if ignorance equals innocence. In your false theory, there is no need for pardon for sins of ignorance, for according to you, if you are ignorant, you are ipso facto, innocent, and need no pardon.

In any viable judgment, a person who is accused may be pardoned based on several factors. But if he is not guilty on any level, then he is acquitted, not pardoned. And there is a vast difference between acquittal and pardon.

Christians who commit sins of ignorance are pardoned by way of the atonement, they are not acquitted because the are innocent. Pardon means guilt and innocence means acquittal because there is no guilt.

You are fighting the bible and the full meaning of sin and atonement. Original sin is non-negotiable as a clear bible doctrine. We are condemned and guilty because of Adam’s choice, not our own. If we refuse the atonement, we then become guilty by our own choice and only add to the guilt we are already under by refusing the remedy God has provided in His Son.

No one by passes the atonement on the basis of ignorance claiming ignorance exempts them from the law. If David Read was any kind of lawyer, he would admit this fact and affirm that my position is correct and clearly biblical.

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