My last post and comment on this subject, Sean. This …

Comment on Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference by Bill Sorensen.

My last post and comment on this subject, Sean. This quote by EGW in Story of Redemption, page 13 speaks for itself.

“The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon His Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host.”

God the Father is first in authority confirmed both by the bible and affirmed by EGW. So ” The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence.”

And Jesus has ordained that Adam and only Adam was king and sovereign over the human family and the whole human race, including Eve, was under the rule of Adam. In the book of Job when the various rulers of the worlds assembled for a meeting, it would have been Adam and not Satan who represented this world. Not Adam and Eve.

People are in the process of sealing their minds in truth or error as we approach the final test. And every error embraced is the tool of Satan to destroy faith in the word of God and foment rebellion against God, His authority, His government and kingdom.

Placing women in positions they are not qualified to hold by God’s ordained system of church government is simply a parallel to the attack on God’s authority in heaven and is now repeated here on earth by wicked men who refuse to subject themselves to God’s ordained system of church government. And to wrest and twist scripture is also a parallel to how Satan twisted and deceived many in the angelic host in the same manner. This issue is not ambiguous nor unclear in its biblical revelations.

So, you can continue in rebellion against the clear declarations of the bible and affirmed by EGW, or carefully rethink your present position and move into line with the word of God.

I did not spend time looking for her quote that Lucifer affirmed he would subject himself to the authority of the Father, but not to Christ. I could find it if I really looked for it. She said it. But it is not necessary to find and post it. There is more than enough evidence to clearly show that God the Father is first in authority and this has nothing to do with your false charge of Arianism of those who reject you view.

Like the incarnation of Christ when He became both man and God, it is not explained by pure reason, but accepted by revelation. And much of your defense of creation falls into this same context. You can not “prove” creation by any natural law or science. Miracles are not provable by science as to how they take place. So, as I said, this is your forum and you can and will have the last word. I won’t respond to what you conclude. People will have to “prove all things” and decide for themselves with the awareness that their eternal life is at stake based on a final conclusion.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
“Again, I think this has to do with the morality of a person, not so much the gender of a person. ”

Sean, this is equal to saying the Sabbath “day” of the commandment is not important as long as we keep the spirit of the Sabbath.

So the quote has to do with both the morality and the gender of the individual. Just as the Sabbath has to do with the literal day as well as the true Spirit of keeping the Sabbath.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
All you have shown and affirmed Sean, is this. They will not affirm that any of the statements are “official teachings of the church”. This would mean anyone who disagreed or differed with any statement would be subject to church discipline.

Like we do the seventh day Sabbath. Or other positions like baptism. You must be baptized by immersion to be a member of the SDA church.

So these books about the “fundamental beliefs of the SDA church” are just stated opinions by scholars who have put together the list of beliefs. Just like the book “Seventh-day Adventists believe…..27”

And is described as “A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines” under the title.

So you have given no evidence that any list is an “official list of doctrines of the SDA church.” We have no “official list”. Period.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
“. I fail to see where the Bible says otherwise? –”

A lot of Sunday keepers reject the Sabbath in the name of the gospel, just like you reject male headship. And “They fail to see otherwise”, but it won’t change the reality. The bible is crystal clear that Adam was head of the human family, and Jesus is the “second Adam”. And Jesus is not “Adam and Eve” no matter what some claim about the position of Eve as being equal to Adam and claim they reigned as co-regents before sin entered.

And it is a superficial argument to claim that since “Christ is head of the church”, He has not ordained levels of authority under His headship, and thus everyone is “equal” to hold any office.

Christ is head of the home. Does this negate male headship in the home? Apparently so, since if one application is valid, so is every other application.

But, there have been many presentations by both sides, just like the Sabbath/Sunday issue. The bible is not vague or ambiguous on either subject.


Recent Comments by Bill Sorensen

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Sean Pitman:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

Paul says, “Sold in in.” and “Children of wrath just like everyone else.”

You may not like this biblical reality, but it is true none the less.

And yes, God has also provided a way of escape so that all who He has created “in sin” can be “born again” spiritually and escape their heritage of sin and shame.

I know a lot of people don’t like this idea, but it is true anyway. We are born lost with the potential to be saved if we accept Jesus and His atonement that is provisional for “whosoever will may come.”

Cain didn’t like it either and resisted the exhortation of his brother, Abel, to offer a sin offering because he was a sinner. Cain says, “No, I’ll bring a thank offering, but no sin offering. Sin is not my fault. God created me this way.”

Most people will be outside looking in because they agree with Cain but a few will be inside looking out because they agree with Abel.

Bill Sorensen


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Sean Pitman:

Well, Sean, I was not as confrontational as Wesley who said, “Those who deny the doctrine of original sin are heathen still.” … [deleted]

[Oh please…

If you want to have a real conversation, great. However, unless you actually respond substantively to the questions and counter arguments posed to you, without your needless pejoratives, I’m not going to continue posting your repetitive comments on this topic in this forum…]
-sdp


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
And the topic at hand is “What does it take to be a real SDA?”

It takes someone who is willing to follow the bible and its teaching in every particular. If you don’t believe this, you are not a “Protestant” SDA.

You then bring up the Trinity. Which is fine. But that is certainly not the only thing that qualifies for the topic of your thread.

So, here is what you stated to me…..”To be morally “guilty” of something, however, requires that one is consciously aware of what is right, but deliberately chooses to do what is wrong instead (James 4:17). Without the interplay of free will, there is no moral “guilt”.”

So a person is “born” selfish, proud, coveteous, vain….etc, but not “guilty” of being, selfish, proud, coveteous, vain….etc. Your limited view of “guilt” is not biblical. Half a truth is equal to a lie. There is certainly conscience guilt. But guilt is more than awareness of right and wrong. “Sin is transgression of the law”, and the law doesn’t care what you know, or don’t know. If you break the law, you are guilty of breaking the law.

Just admit the truth, Sean. But don’t accuse me of going outside the intent of this thread when it was not specifically stated as a thread about the Trinity.

Just “man up” once in a while and admit you are wrong. We are all born guilty in the eyes of God. And our ignorance does not free us from this fact.

Bill Sorensen


Science and Methodological Naturalism
Well, Sean, this article is about Dr. Taylor and his argument to negate the bible. Maybe you and Goldstein can persuade him with your arguments.

The evidences of nature function as a “law that is a schoolmaster” to lead us to the bible. “The heavens declare the glory of God…….” but still does not tell us who God is nor the function of His government concerning the moral law.

In fact, natural law is so convoluted by sin that “survival of the fittest” is the only logical conclusion.

At any rate, I wish you well in your endeavors to support the creation account in scripture.
Take care.


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Sean Pitman:

I read Kevin Paulson’s article and he “double talks” around the obvious to deny and/or ignore the reality of what the bible teaches and EGW confirms.

Babies are born guilty of sin because they are born with the spirit of sin. They have no power to do anything but sin unless and until by the special grace of God, they are given the ability to “choose”.

If you add God’s grace to the bible definition of original sin, you can make man free to act all you want. Original sin has to do with the fall of Adam and the results. It is not about God’s grace that has been added by way of the cross. So EGW has stated clearly in support of the fall and its effects on Adam’s children.

” God declares, “I will put enmity.” This enmity is not naturally entertained. When man transgressed the divine law, his nature became evil, and he was in harmony, and not at variance, with Satan. There exists naturally no enmity between sinful man and the originator of sin. Both became evil through apostasy. The apostate is never at rest, except as he obtains sympathy and support by inducing others to follow his example. For this reason, fallen angels and wicked men unite in desperate companionship. Had not God specially interposed, Satan and man would have entered into an alliance against Heaven; and instead of cherishing enmity against Satan, the whole human family would have been united in opposition to God.” {GC88 505.2}

Those who deny original sin and its effects on the children of Adam always appeal to the atonement and the grace of God. But we see that God “put” enmity between Satan and the human family.

As Luther said to Erasmus in their discussion on this matter when Erasmus claimed the will was free by way of grace,
“Once you add grace you can make the will as free as you like.”

Original sin is not about grace nor what man can do once grace is implied and involved. Original sin is about what man is after the fall apart from grace and/or God’s special action super-imposed in the situation. So, if there is no original sin, neither is there any need for grace.

Kevin Paulson convolutes the issue just like other SDA scholars by making no distinction between how man is after the fall with or without grace.

So, in light of original sin, David says, “The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Ps. 58

David knows apart from God’s grace, no one can do anything but sin. Original sin highlights the necessity and value of the atonement and what it truly means to be “born again.”

Hear the words of Jesus, “That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit, ye must be born again.”

Original sin is exactly why Jesus made this comment. No one can read and understand the bible who denies the reality of original sin and its effects on all the children of Adam. We are all born guilty of sin, even before we act. So Isaiah says, “Write the vision and make it plain, that wayfareing men, though fools, need not err therein.”

In closing, original sin is not about the atonement nor its meaning and application to humanity. It is about man as he comes from Adam lost and without hope, power, choice or any ability to do anything about his situation.