Comment on Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference by Bill Sorensen.
“Beyond this, we are talking about fundamental doctrines. Not everything that may be true is necessarily fundamental to the primary goals and ideals of the church. It is therefore Ok for the church to allow for diversity of opinion on these non-fundamental issues.”
Well, Sean, we still have a dilemma based on the fact that the church has no “official” fundamental doctrines. The disclaimer at the beginning of the Fundamental Beliefs book affirms that the positions are not official SDA doctrines. This leaves the church free to disavow any position and claim it is not officially endorsed by the church.
When the church opted for “Pluralism” several decades ago, it emasculated itself of any real authority to discipline what could be perceived as false doctrine. And now the church is basically impotent to do anything but pontificate threats that it can not carry out. And I think we all know that any organization that can not discipline itself, is powerless to discipline those who are supposedly under its authority.
The situation can not be resolved except those who agree with each other will be forced to unify in harmony with their stated views that they all agree on. Both sides will be forced into this situation at some point. And who ever we decide is “the church” based on our personal view of the bible will be who we unite with and support.
Our parents and grandparents never envisioned this situation and never thought that what we have today would be a factor. The church against the world was the only situation they considered. But the church against the church by definition was totally foreign to their thinking. None the less, we are confronted with the situation as some Unions consider that their authority has been limited to less than they consider acceptable.
Unions have a level of authority, but never outside the stated policy of the General Conference. And this is the issue that people need to deal with. Just as a pastor has authority in the local church to baptize new members, but a pastor is not free to baptize anyone outside the stated policy defined by the SDA church.
Our church government starts from the bottom up with church members being delegates to conference meetings to appoint conference officials. From there Union and division levels of authority are appointed and from there the General Conference is derived as the final level of authority in church government. It does not start top down. But bottom up. And to claim the SDA church is a parallel to the Roman Catholic Church is simply bogus. The RCC is top down from beginning to end. Authority starts at the top and remains at the top and members of the church have no voice on any level of authority in church government. This is not the SDA system. And those who accuse the church as being a parallel to the RCC need to quit making this false charge. And people need to be educated concerning the system of church government the SDA church is built on. A lack of education on this issue is one major problem and those who are advocating rebellion are deliberately misrepresenting our church government to influence people to support their rebellion.
I would hope the church members become more intelligent and not be deceived and deluded by the rebellious party who claim freedom to do as they please outside properly ordained church government and authority as outlined for the SDA church.
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.
