Sean, as Christians, we are not especially interested in presenting …

Comment on Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools by Bill Sorensen.

Sean, as Christians, we are not especially interested in presenting the evidence that the world is here. We all know that. Neither are we interested in affirming that “what goes up, must come down.” We all know this as well.

What we are interested in doing is affirming the “first cause”. This is the issue between creation vs. evolution. Evolution denies how a Christian views the “first cause” and they also deny miracles. And our only sustainable evidence for our view of the “first cause ” is the bible. Just because you don’t like to admit that prophecy is the ultimate evidence to sustain the bible, does not mean it is not so. Prophecy has always been the evidence that all bible believing Christians use to “hang our hat on” to affirm the absolute validity of the bible. As you have stated “faith is not blind faith”. Of course not. But bible faith is based primarily on bible prophecy.

Only God can accurately predict the future. And it is the God of the bible that prophecies, and then claims He is the creator God. Then He tells us how He created the world apart from human reasoning of how He could do. “He spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast.” There is no “science” that can verify this biblical affirmation. Science is “out the window” on this aspect of bible truth.

You seem to ignore and circumvent the real issue by avoiding this reality. Believers don’t despise science. We use it continually to accomplish many goals. But we never use it as a tool to affirm who God is, or how He can create. As long as you ignore this reality, you miss the basic point of the creation vs. evolution debate and discussion.

The question is not whether any thing is here or how it functions and its complexity. The question is “How did it get here and who or what was responsible?” Even if people will admit the possibility of ID, they still have not accepted the biblical account and may never do so. We would hope they would consider the biblical explanation, but even then, they must conclude there is no science that can affirm or confirm the “first cause.”
Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
Pauluc quoted Sean who said, “I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well”

And all bible Christians recognize that Sean has pushed himself out to sea with no viable anchor for his faith in the end. It has been well noted that in the end, a person must accept one authority, or the other. You can not have both science and biblical revelation be equal in authority. And this is because they can not be rationally and perfectly harmonized on all levels of rational reasoning.

There must necessarily come a time when Sean must eventually admit that his scientific understanding and knowledge can not be perfectly and rationally harmonized with scripture. The apostle Paul says, “Spiritual things, are spiritually discerned.” And this excludes science as being a final authority, nor can we use science on all levels to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”

Even if we admit and confess there is no real conflict between science and bible faith, the confession is a faith confession, not a scientific confession. The fact is, we will always find that science is at odds on some level with scriptural revelations and affirmations. Since we have no way of proving the “first cause”, we must accept some speculation based on the affirmation of scripture, or some speculation based on scientific findings.

Apparently, Sean rejects the idea that God is self affirming when He presents the evidence of the truthfulness of His declarations. He seems to believe that self affirmation has no evidence, and any evidence negates self affirmation. So, God’s self affirmation could only be valid if He said, “I am God and I said so, and that’s that.” But if and when God presents evidence of His claim, it is no longer self affirmation but goes beyond this concept.

I have tried to understand Sean on this point and hope I have not misrepresented his explanation. But the conclusion I have come to seems to me to be the only one that fits his explanation. At any rate, Pauluc seems to have again pointed out a basic flaw in Sean’s overall argument.
Bill Sorensen

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
“God expects us to use the minds and intelligence that He has given us to search out the Bible as it compares to the supporting empirical evidence that He has also provided.”

I’ve never suggested otherwise, Sean. Self affirmation and self validation does not negate the evidence provided to affirm the affirmation. God makes claims and then proves them. The proof does not negate His self affirmation. It only confirms it. But you claim the proof negates the concept of self affirmation. I disagree and think any viable reasonable individual would disagree as well.

I fail to see how any rational and reasonable understanding would assume self affirmation can only be a reality if and when no evidence is provided to affirm the claim.

Bill Sorensen

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
While every thing in the scientific field has not been discovered, I think it is more than obvious that only those things that have been “proven absolutely” are used in a practical application. We don’t send people to the moon based on some probability of how the elements of the universe works. We are absolutely sure, and wouldn’t speculate with human life based on some obscure probability. So the evidence we use for scientific functions are by way of “infallible evidence” and not probabilities. This is precisely because they can be proven by experiment. And then repeated again and again.

To claim we use this same method to affirm biblical declarations when God states that He created the world in 6 days is a real stretch of the imagination. No can “prove” the first cause and science generally doesn’t even try to do it. At this point, Sean, I am not sure you really understand what the real issue is in the creation vs. evolution discussion is. The issue is “first cause”. Period. Other points are simply side issues about the first cause. You have gone out of your way to claim the bible does not claim self affirmation. Or, self validation. And apparently you think you can use science to determine the “first cause” and thus there is no need for “self affirmation” by scriptures.

All you are doing is creating more and more confusion about the basic issue of first cause. The bible reveals the first cause. Science doesn’t deal with it. Simply because it can not do so. Science may work endlessly to negate the biblical revelation of the first cause. But it has no alternative statement that can be verified. As bible Christians, as I have clearly stated, we use bible prophecy to validate the biblical claims. The bible presents its own evidence for its validity. You can oppose this reality from now on, but it won’t change the facts of the matter. The miracle of creation by the word of God is beyond scientific testing or validation. We prove it by bible prophecy. And this method is more than adequate to convince any individual seeking truth with an open and willing mind, as the Holy Spirit (God) validates the truth of it.

Bill Sorensen

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