Ron said…… “Bill, I agree that LSU has gone over to …

Comment on LSU student petition criticizes curriculum by Bill Sorensen.

Ron said……

“Bill, I agree that LSU has gone over to the world, but do not agree no one has the authority to do anything about it. If you read the LSU website, it has the list of what the Board can do, and it CAN do a lot! I don’t have the paragraph number right now, but could get it.

The fact is the Board has the authority and can do something, but it chooses not to. Why? Well, besides blaming Ellen White, Graham has not told us anything, preferring to make some “adjustments” in the curriculum, which have been a total failure!” Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)

What you said may be true Dr. Stone. None the less, as you have stated, they are not willing to do anything dynamic to correct the situation. But the main point is this, the SDA denomination has no authority over the board of directors. If this is the case, the school is independent of the SDA church.

We could only wonder how many other SDA institutions are able to do the same thing? We know the denomination owns all the churches. So they can close and/or sell any church building they choose. And if they want to shut down any church, they can.

LSU probably does not fit this scenario.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

LSU student petition criticizes curriculum
We should see this apostacy as paralleled by the rebellion in heaven. No doubt some of the loyal angels asked God why He did not deal with Lucifer in a more dynamic way. Is there a reason?

Yes, God knows it is imperative for sin to develop to a certain level that no one will say they did not know what the issues were. Just so, in the SDA church, this apostacy must continue until it is so obvious an attack on God and His kingdom, no one can say they did not understand the implication of the rebellion.

And there is a sense in which God can do nothing about it and still maintain the free will responsibility of His created beings. Didn’t God know Satan would deceive a third of the angels? Yes. But all He could do was suffer the pain of knowing the outcome that all could eventually see what Satan was up to.

Some things, God can’t do. And this is one of them. People who are eventually lost simply refuse to accept their accountability either for themselves or others under their influence. God won’t alter His kingdom and the rules of it for their sake or anyone else. To do so, would challenge His right to create free moral agents and this is the very heart of the rebellion and controversy between Christ and Satan.

Satan claims God is solely responsible to preserve His created order and no created being should feel any pressure to maintain their existence. God created us, God should preserve us. There should be no law that could or would threathen our existence.

People buy into Satan’s theory again and again and the final deception is universalism based on the idea that God will eventually save everyone, no matter what. This lie is so appealing and reflects the lie Satan told in heaven. Small wonder so many were deceived then, and no mystery why so many in this world of sin are more than willing to believe it as well.

It is heart and soul of the present false gospel being presented even in much of modern Adventism. Few seem to have the spiritual preception to identify it and oppose it.

The final judgment according to works is to remind us that we are ultimately responsible for our own destiny and salvation. No one wants to believe it, and you are called a “legalist” if you advocate and support it.

So, we must endure the LSU fiasco and many more like it before it is all over. We don’t have to like it, or support it. And most of all, we need to understand the spirituality of it all. The loyal angels warned those being deceived of the outcome of apostacy. But there is a certain carnal logic to Satan’s theory and they wanted to believe it, and did.

His logic is carrying many today. And it comes in many forms. Such as, “I have an issue with the things being said here. Have anyone on this website ever seen the children that attend the La Sierra Campus? These teenagers/adults have done amazing things as Christians for the people in their community, faith, and as a campus family. The faculty is amazing and have only encouraged the students to develop and grow in their walk with God. Has anyone on this website realize the damage that is being done and will be done to the teenagers when they read this? I have talked to many people from La Sierra University and it is all hurtful to each and every one of them. But as a school family they have only grown closer to the Lord.”

And we can only ask, “In what way are they closer to the Lord?”

Catholics do a “lot of good”. And many civic minded people “do a lot of good.” And Mormons “do a lot of good”. So what? This argument is meaningless. Our goal is to demand accountability to the word of God. We don’t ask “Do they do a lot of good?” As though this is reason enough to abandon the bible.

Not everyone is deceived, nor will everyone be deceived. But “straight is the gate and narrow is the way…….” We know the rest of this scripture, don’t we?

Jesus wants His people to stand firm. Even if it is only a few. And we are not to judge who in the end will see “the light” and join the true and loyal. None the less, we can identify apostacy and opppose it.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen


LSU student petition criticizes curriculum

Professor Kent says:
August 29, 2010 Bill Sorensen wrote

People like Batchelor and Assercheck need to be more vocal in their opposition.

Ron Stone wrote

As far as Pastor Batchelor is concerned, I personally know that Doug Batchelor (I attend his church) is fully supportive of our efforts here. He has spoken on this and other controversial topics many times, always taking God’s Word as the highest “truth” in contrast to the LSU philosophy of teaching human “wisdom!” Pastor Doug, because he actually preaches God’s Truth, is hated by many out here in our SDA Church in California. Why? Well, he and his staff have not backed down from the supporters of humanistic philosophies that we see prominent out here, both in our members and “leaders.”

Sounds like you two need to be on the same page. Professor Kent

Professor Kent,
I live in the mid-west, (Kansas). In some ways,I suppose the church is more conservative here. But certainly not even close to the historic faith of our Fathers. All over the denomination, pastors are intimidated by various means if they are conservative. I suppose their job is one main issue that keeps them less than vocal even in what they know about these issues they disagree with.

And of course, there is also a legitiment issue of “wheat and tares” to be considered in decision making. I am not suggesting the problem is always a cut and dried issue simple to diagnois and remedy.

But to sit and do basically nothing to maintain the statis quo and hope the problem will solve itself is certainly no solution. Church politics is paralleled by civil government politics. How far are we from a power take over in America? Precisely because no one in authority has any moral character in America in the government. And many can not even understand what is basically wrong with America.

No doubt, many are willing for someone to “stop the bickering” in America and do something. And isn’t this the same scenario in the SDA church?

Individual accountability seems to be dead in both agendas, both civil and religious. After all, we are all basically still pretty comfortable both in the church and in the world. And none of us are going to like the situation in the near future. I’m not looking forward to it either in the SDA church or in American politics.

Shocking developments will soon unfold and SDA’s are not ready for it. But could and should at least be aware that the present statis quo will not survive and we need to consider now, what side we will take as the issues become more intense, not less intense.

True believers are going to be sacrificed by the church as the old argument “It is better to sacrifice some than see the whole denomination splintered”. It has already happened, but will intensify as the issues become more dynamic and demand action to preserve the church.

Lay members don’t see it, believe it, or understand it. It is beyond their present mentality. The leaders will keep it “hush, hush” as possible. But eventually, it will simply “blow up” just as the crucifixion of Jesus caused an explosion heard around the world.

LSU is neither the beginning, nor the end. It is simply somewhere in the middle. At some point, no doubt, every individual will necessarily stand alone and it may well be against “the church”.

Remember this, Adventism began with the continual cry of her opposers that Adventism was a system of legalism. We have tried earnestly to shed this label and in order to do this, we have abandon our doctrine, message and commission. In short, we have abandon the bible.

The label will simply be re-affirmed and applied to all true believers who are loyal to the faith and no one is more forceful and dynamic in applying this label today than liberal leaders who hold positions of influence and authority in the SDA church today.

Martin Weber, editor of Mid-America Outlook, never publishes an issue that he does not continually and consistently attack conservative church members as legalists. Who’s the real enemy of Adventism? Inside, or outside? If you don’t like the label of “legalist”, you just as well abandon ship today. Trust me, you will be stuck with it whether you are one or not, as long as you support EGW and our historic bible message.

Keep the faith,

Bill Sorensen


LSU student petition criticizes curriculum
Now if God can and will save “the church” it certainly will not be by some hocus-pocus magic that people apparently seem to visualize. “Oh, don’t worry, Bill, God will save His church”, is the idea some express. And my question is “And how will He do that?”

If God could save by some hocus-pocus magic, then He certainly could have saved the Jews. Or the early church from Popery. The condition of success for the church is always by way of response to reproof and correction by the scriptures. And since “the church” today seems less than willing to respond to the bible, we could only wonder if “the church” is not in the process of commiting the unpardonable sin like previously chosen instrumentalities.

Do we believe EGW when she wrote….

“God is weighing our characters, our conduct, and our motives in the balances of the sanctuary. It will be a fearful thing to be pronounced wanting in love and obedience by our Redeemer, who died upon the cross to draw our hearts unto Him. God has bestowed upon us great and precious gifts. He has given us light and a knowledge of His will, so that we need not err or walk in darkness. To be weighed in the balance and found wanting in the day of final settlement and rewards will be a fearful thing, a terrible mistake which can never be corrected. Young friends, shall the book of God be searched in vain for your names?” {CCh 188.2}

We should have no misgivings as to what she means by this phrase “weighed in the balances of the sanctuary”. It means lost and rejected. So we ask, “Does she ever apply this to the SDA church?” Here is what she said…

” In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the
60
sentence: “Found wanting.” By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged. . . . ” {LDE 59.3}

Were you aware of this statement? Do you understand what it means? Did she believe in some kind of “unconditional election” for the SDA church? I think not. So what are the implications of the statement? I think we already know. But we need to be aware of its fulfillment right before our eyes and do all we can to see that this conclusion can and will be avoided.

She had great faith and hope for “the church”. But she was not blind to the possible reality of the SDA church eventually being disqualifed as the instrumentality to present the final message to the world.

It is my conviction that the message itself is infallible because it is biblical. But the church is not and can easily be led astray when those in position of influence and authority abandon their obligation and duty to deal with apostacy until the apostacy is so strong, there is no hope of recovery in the church as in the Jews rejection of Christ and the early church rejection of the bible.

I still have hope. But it is not blind faith and hope as many seem to think in their view of “the church” and its election to finish the work.

After all, this fiasco at LSU is just one of many scenarios that most are not willing to even talk about, let alone act to correct the errors.

Keep the faith

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