I think you are working your way through these concepts, …

Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by Bill Sorensen.

I think you are working your way through these concepts, Bob, and I appreciate your comments. And I think most SDA’s have some idea of how it works. But if you hammer out year after year for 40 years how you are NOT justified by the law, and never explain how you ARE justified by the law, the end conclusion is there is no context in which we are justified by the law.

Rome’s view of justification and the law is this, Jesus came and showed us how we can merit and earn heaven by keeping the law, both moral and church ceremonies.

Luther first attack church ceremonies by denying anyone can merit heaven in doing these things.
Eventually, he also realized that even keeping the moral law could not merit heaven. Then he imposed the moral law on Galatians and used Galatians to show we can not keep the moral law and merit heaven.

Paul was not talking about the moral law in Galatians. It is solely and only the ceremonial law. Paul is talking about a law that was “added” and then explains how that law is now “subtracted”. Obviously, the ceremonial law.

While we can rightly see a moral law application in principle, it creates total confusion to claim in the historical context that Paul is talking about the moral law. It would mean the moral law has been “subtracted” and now has no application to the Christian community.

Historically, SDA’s have been very careful to explain the difference between the function of the ceremonial law and the moral law. But now we take the book of Galatians and explain it as if there is no difference.

Let me give you a reading assignment. Go read the chapter entitled “Apostacy in Galatia” in the book Acts of the Apostles.

You may be somewhat shocked that EGW never suggests or implies in any way that the law in Galatians is the moral law. That is because she knows it is not. But she also knows that we can impose a moral law application in principle, since no one can merit heaven by the moral law and fulfill the legal requirements of the law by way of the moral law.

In some ways, she created more confusion in the 1888 fiasco than she clarified. And today, because of some of the things she said, we now conclude that Galatians is about the moral law.

Apostate Protestantism is happy and willing for us to use Galatians as we do today. They know that in the end, if this interpretation is correct, Adventism will necessarily give up the Sabbath. All they have to do is wait. Neither is the devil going to cause trouble in a church that is coming over more and more to his side.

In this light, a word about the celebration movement. As SDA’s, we generally don’t have a clue of what the churches of the world are “celebrating”.
Simply this, “Jesus died and did away with the law.” And we think we are celebrating the same “gospel” they are. And, sad to say, in many ways we are.

We state it slightly different, but in the end, it means exactly the same thing. So we say, “You don’t have to keep the law to be saved.” Totally false. It would be accurate to say an unbeliever can not keep the law unless he comes to Jesus. And even then, he can not keep the law and merit heaven.

The bible never places the function of the moral law in the room of what the ceremonial law typifies as Rome does. But the bible clearly defines how we are justified and saved by keeping the moral law in a biblical relationship with Jesus.

In conclusion, it is OK and commendable to show how we are not justified by the law, as long as we continue the explanation and show how we are justified by the law. We don’t do this in the church anymore, and the members are becoming more and more biblically illiterate as they reflect what is being taught in their church today.

In the end, the Sabbath is at stake and confusion reigns from top to bottom.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Mack said……

“Liberals aren’t condemning all to hell for disagreeing with them.”

Of course not, Mack. They hold the “Bully pulpit” and if you don’t like it, “Get out of town.”

They will do everything they can to destroy your influence in the church. And they don’t mind lying to accomplish their goals either.

And once they get their agenda in place, it is “sweep everything under the rug we don’t want any investigation and exposure.”

They would shut up Shane and Sean if they could. And now we hear not a word from David Asserick or Jay Galimore about the La Sierra situation.

Who do you think shut them up?

Oh yes, the liberals hold the “bully pulpit” and use it to their advantage. By the way, Shane and Sean allow you to post what you please as well as Ken and others who attack the bible and spread their unbelief all over cyber space.

Why is it Spectrum and A-today don’t allow me free posting on their forums? They allow anyone who attacks the SDA faith to post freely and even encourage such activity. Including a Catholic priest who attacks not only Adventism but basic Protestantism.

Liberals control not only the secular media and our political system, but religion in America in general and liberals control the SDA church as well.

The situation at LSU is typical and not some unusual situation in Adventism.

Shane and Sean have forced into the public arena their double dealing and duplicity for any and all to see.

Any objective observer can see who controls modern day Adventism. Who do you think “Forces” rock and roll music, jewelry, women elders and a dress agenda that emulates the heathen?

I don’t know a pastor in the denomination today with the spiritual stamina to stand up and demand accountability of his members for fear of losing his job.

So, as the saying goes, Mack. “I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.”

The devil has been working his way into the church for the last 40 years and he is not sitting on the back row. He is in the pulpit.

“The great issue so near at hand will weed out those whom God has not appointed and He will have a pure, true, sanctified ministry prepared for the latter rain.–3SM 385 (1886). {LDE 179.2}
Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan. . . . {LDE 179.3}”

Notice, she said, “many”. Not a “few”.

Church members don’t really believe it, so the leaders are pulling it off with little difficulty.

Don’t get me started, Mack. I’ve seen everything for decades. Thankfully, a few like Shane and Sean are now beginning to speak out publically. And, yes, some are beginning to wake up.

God will yet have a people who hold to the bible only and won’t be intimidated by the liberal agenda.

Bill Sorensen


Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
“Martin held up the social conservative POV and Clifford the theological conservative POV.”

Well, I think Weber went through transition like we all do, Bob.

I doubt he holds the same theological views and philosophy he did 20 years ago. He was more conservative then. So, like I said, he was bought off for a few pieces of silver.

He never writes a view point in the paper where he is not attacking the traditional SDA church calling every conservative a “legalist”. In one article, he lamented that his poor old mother had to leave the SDA church and fellowship in a Lutherean church to find “love” and fellowship.

The people were so cold and non-loving, she had to go else where. All this to undermine historic Adventism and opt for his liberal theology. He incessantly and constantly pushes women elders in almost every issue.

Maybe you still know him and talk with him. He is not the Martin Weber of the past, and he would probably agree and be proud of it.

Bill Sorensen


Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Bob, my concern is not so much with David Read as it is with the SDA church of today. David reflects modern Adventism and most people, even so called “conservative” Adventists can’t articulate the full scope of the bible doctrine and teaching on “justification”.

The concept of law and justification is far more comprehensive in the bible than the vicarious atonement.

The church has spent years in explaining how we are “not justified by the law”, and there is a biblical concept that supports this truth. Sad to say for the church, there is a biblical concept on how we are justified by the law, and our church today never discusses it or explains how it works.

Consequently, people don’t believe we are justified by the law in any context. And when you state that we are, you are accused of legalism.

For the most part, we have novices who define bible truth and have the influence and authority in modern Adventism.

David rightly said this in response to my statement…..

“”The bible doctrine of justification by works is conspicuous by its absence in the SDA church today.” Bill Sorensen

Bill, I repudiate such language in the strongest possible terms. There is no Bible doctrine of justification by works, so its absence from the SDA Church, or any other Christian Church, is not surprising. To speak of the “bible doctrine of justification by works” is to repudiate the Bible.

I just want to make clear to anyone reading this thread, Bill, that your faith is not my faith. I am not giving up the gospel just because you hold yourself out as a conservative,…….” David Read

David simply reflects what he has been taught. It is superficial theology at best, and heresy at worst.

Bill Sorensen


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.