“Should little children be drowned because of the conduct of …

Comment on Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict by Bill Sorensen.

“Should little children be drowned because of the conduct of their elders? Hard to understand how that could be remotely just by a kind and caring God. I certainly wouldn’t kill anyone’s children for the acts of the parents and I’m just a fallible mortal.”

Ken ken(Quote)

Actually, Ken, our understanding of justice is very limited. Simply because we do not see everything God sees.

Neither do we comprehend the pain sin has caused the heart of God. And it may seem to us the God is arbitrary in at least some of His actions, He is not.

One thing we can know for sure. What is done in the course of history is necessary to bring about a complete and final end of sin.

And as EGW has said, “We do not know how God will deal with children of unbelieving parents since the bible does not tell us.”

Here is the exact quote……” I had some conversation with Elder [J.G.] Matteson in regard to whether children of unbelieving parents would be saved. I related that a sister had with great anxiety asked me this question, stating that some had told her that the little children of unbelieving parents would not be saved. {3SM 313.1}
This we should consider as one of the questions we are not at liberty to express a position or an opinion upon, for the simple reason that God has not told us definitely about this matter in His Word. If He thought it was essential for us to know, He would have told us plainly. {3SM 313.2}

The topic is somewhat off the issue of creation, but if you learn to trust the God of creation, you will know His dealings with the human race are both just and merciful. And if you and I feel bad about sin, how do you think God feels?

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict

I think you are missing the point of my inquiry gentleman.
Which is, why did God create man or anything else for the matter at all?

Knowing that by doing so, some will choose the road to destruction, while others will face unspeakable suffering from the hands of others. If he did not create anything to begin with-than this concept of free-will-would not be necessary. Why did God create? Ricky Kim

Well, Ricky, some accept and like the bible’s answer to your question and some don’t. For those who don’t like the answer, God will simply “un-create” them as this is their choice.

Do you like the fact that God created you? Those who are saved, all like this idea. They may not like suffering and other negative things sin has brought into God’s universe, but we are told and promised that this will all come to an end soon.

God is not responsible for sin, even though He has allowed it. Others have explained this.

Ultimately, God created us to know and share the quality of life He Himself knows and enjoys. And in fellowship with Him and others who know and fellowship with Him as we fellowship with each other, we experience a quality of life that transcends the animal world.

For us, this means self government based on a responsible freedom in harmony with God’s loving will.

Do you like this idea? If not, God won’t force you to participate but will honor your choice to be free from this responsible freedom and end your existence.

Satan desired irresponsible freedom. It doesn’t work that way. That is simply chaos with no stability. Responsible freedom is governed by the law of love. Christians are in the process of learning and appropriating God’s way instead of Satan’s way. Not always easy, but rewarding and satisfying in the end.

Sin is delusional. It promises freedom, but genders bondage. We don’t have to know everything, and don’t. So what we don’t know, Jesus stands in our place and presents us to God as “perfect”. Knowing this, we have “peace with God through Jesus Christ”.

If we don’t have Jesus, then we must know everything and be equal to God. This is not possible. God can not create another God. But He can create a moral being with simular qualities. That is, freedom of choice as others have explained.

Do you want to live forever in perfect freedom and happiness? Jesus is the answer. If you are struggling to figure some of this out, “welcome to the club”. But there is a viable biblical answer that has a rational explanation based on spiritual concepts. The Holy Spirit helps us see it, know it, and appreciate it. And ultimately, desire it.

I hope someone has helped you see and understand something of the enigma of your question.

Christian regards,

Bill Sorensen

Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict
I suppose “short-winded philosophizing” is as good as any. Maybe Ricky will something of value in all the comments if he reads them all.

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…]

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.