” However, I am puzzled by your statement, “When He …

Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bill Sorensen.

” However, I am puzzled by your statement, “When He chooses to break into our historical process, He does not know anymore than we do.” Are you talking about the incarnation?”

Yes, Bob. But we must see that the “incarnation” is more of a “revelation” than an “inovation”.

The devil accused God of being an “elitist” who would not subject Himself to the same laws that all other created beings are expected to conform to. And certainly, outside the circle of all creation, God is self existent and subject to no one or anything. But we examine the paradox of creation more carefully by way of scripture.

God can and will “enter” the realm of the created order and when He does, He willingly subjects Himself to the same laws He imposes on creation.

So, Paul says, “When the fulness of time was come, Christ came into this world, ‘made under the law'”. Gal. 4:4

This is a revelation, not an inovation. Notice how Jesus speaks to Abraham in Gen.

“I come down to see if all the reports I am getting about Sodom are true.”

Hello? Is Jesus telling us He does not know what is happening in Sodom, and His only knowledge is what the angels are reporting? The answer is “yes”. He has limited Himself for our benefit and Abraham knows it. So he beings to reason with Christ.

“You wouldn’t destroy Sodom if 50 righteous people were there, would you Lord?” Abraham knows he can “dicker” with Jesus and influence His decision.

We don’t know how Jesus “limits Himself” in this context, but He does. He is still God. And now we can see and comprehend how the investigative judgment works and the importance of the human factor in the decisions made concerning salvation.

God uses no inherent self knowledge to determine the outcome of this final judgment. He must and will go solely by the books of record and the decision is made based on the books. Nothing more, and nothing less. This truth should strike a little fear into the presumptous, antinomian spirits who apply “grace” far outside the biblical norm.

That God knows who will be saved or lost, is not relevant in the context of the IJ. Neither will He say, “Well, I knew this person would have repented a few weeks after his death, and therefore, I will take him to heaven.” Such would negate the whole purpose of the Great Controversy and Satan would win.

Glad to see your mind was stimulated, Bob. Have a great new year and “keep the faith.”

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
George, there is a t-shirt that reads, “I can explain it for you, but I can not understand it for you.”

And this is why communication is so complex. We may know what we mean when we tell others, this does not mean they know what we mean after our explanation.

Like the song says, “They’re only words, and words are all I have, to steal your heart away.”

Small wonder the bible can be so confusing on so many areas of understanding of diverse concepts. Everything is parallel and contrast, and we often don’t know which is which.

But if you stick with the bible with considerable prayer and effort, you will eventually see a clear picture emerge with a consistent flowing continuity. No concept stands alone. Nothing is written in a vacuum. So that every bible writer always assume you already know something about the subject, and they are simply adding a more comprehensive aspect to what has already been affirmed.

It is only when bits and pieces are wrested from the total context that false ideas and conclusions are arrived at. And in one sense, everyone is a novice, even the most learned. And novices always end up destroying the flowing continuity of the biblical message.

And finally, we must yield to biblical revelation over and above human reasoning. God does not by-pass human reasoning. But the human element will only find the truth by first yielding to revelation.

And finally a bible believer will confess that the Holy Spirit can and will eventually create a consistent church community that stands together in a common and clear understanding of God’s word. This is my final confession of faith and what I seek. And those who do the same will make up the final community of faith.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
I might add this important point, when people say we are “not under the law”, it will always end up claiming we are not “under the authority of the bible” as a final application of “not under the law.” And then people look for outside affirmation for their conclusions about any and all bible teaching.

This is evident by those who abandon clear bible teaching on creation and opt for scientific knowledge to draw a final conclusion. But to be “under the law” in its true biblical context is stated by Jesus who said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Let us willingly subject ourselves to be “under the law” and acknowledge not only the authority of scripture, but affirm God’s right to rule His people by way of the bible, including the 10 commandments.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Just a note to start the new year. How we understand and interpret the bible concerning “faith” and viable Christanity has much to do with how we view certain terms and/or ideas presented in the bible.

The phrase “under the law” has two clear meanings and application in scripture. One is the negative concept of guilt and judgment. Or, we are “under the condemnation of the law”.

The other idea of being “under the law” was used by Reformation scholars to mean, “All Christians and all humanity is ‘under the law’ as a rule of life.”

This biblical concept is either unknown or simply ignored, even in the SDA church today. So now, the phrase “under the law” always means and can only mean under the condemnation of the law. This is a limited and even false view of the full comprehensive way the phrase is used in the bible and Reformation theology. And because of this, we have continual disagreement of what the bible means about the law and justification.

In a dialogue with the pastor where I attend church, he was shocked when I stated all Christians are “under the law” as a rule of life. It was a foreign idea and new to his thinking. Yet it has always been a part of historic SDA evangelism and has been ignored or removed from modern SDA theology. When we can explain what it means to be “under the law” as a rule of life, we will go a long ways in clarifying the difficulties in the church.

So Christians are not “under the condemnation of the law” if we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. But all created beings are “under the law” as a rule of life, and this will remain for eternity.


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