Certainly individuals have a right to join together in a …

Comment on Video show LSU undermining church doctrine by Bill Sorensen.

Certainly individuals have a right to join together in a common faith and bond. They have a right to state a unity of faith. And each should represent the other as all represent Christ.

And I agree, if and when an individual can not agree and harmonize with the rest, nor convince the others of his personal convictions of what is truth, then he must withdraw. And if not, he must be disfellowshipped because he is immoral to claim to represent the rest, when he does not.

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos.

The obvious answer is no.

People who refuse to leave when they know they do not agree, are wicked individuals who have no morals.

As EGW said, Some would profess to believe in her testimonies to retain and maintain influence over the people. When they knew all the while they did not agree nor support her ministry. Their wicked intent is obvious. To pretend you agree when you know you don’t is infinitely more evil than open disagreement in honest discussion. Not knowing for sure what is truth.

And this EGW dealt with when supporting corporate unity in honest dialogue on various issues. If all would honestly seek truth by way of the bible, then a viable unity will come to be.

We know that many who “hang around the church” have no intent nor desire to understand the historic truth and have a singular goal to spread doubt, unbelief and skepticism. Yes, they are free to believe as they please individually. But, no, they are not free to spread their confusion in the church without reproof and correction and should eventually and ultimately be disfellowshipped if they do not repent.

No doubt it would be better if they simply withdrew. But many will not and should eventually be dealt with accordingly. Religious freedom does not mean you are free to enter any church of your choice and demand the right to spread your own personal opinion in opposition to the unified understanding of the majority. Yet this is how some would like to interpret religious freedom. They have a warped sense of freedom.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
Butler understood that if you warp the teaching of Galatians, you would eventually warp the whole bible. In fact, he predicted the demise taking place in the church today because of a warped view of Galatians.

EGW did not endorse everything Jones and Waggoner presented nor their interpretation and application of the law in Galatians. Obviously, many of their conclusions and ideas were false. The both attack the basic message of Adventism. Jones left completely and Waggoner did little better.

If you think it is easy for people to misunderstand and misapply the law, you can be doubly sure it is more likely to happen with a false application of the gospel.

This whole issue of creation vs. evolution is a direct result of the Ford fiasco in the 1980’s when he attack the IJ, EGW, and the bible. All in the name of the gospel. He warped Galatians just like Jones and Waggoner.

“The curse causeless shall not come.” Solomon

The church still follows a slavish attitude concerning the 1888 fiasco with the understanding that somehow Jones and Waggoner were essentially correct and Smith and Butler were wrong. That Jones and Waggoner were agitating an important issue should not be denied. That they had a clear preception of the subject should be denied. Especially in the way they applied its meaning and application.

Now we have creation debates, investigative judgment debates, EGW debates and obviously are soon to be confronted more and more about Sabbath and its meaning, time and application in the New Testament.

Many in Adventism are embracing a type of dispensationalism that is the fruit of a false gospel. When the Spirit and love are placed above the objective written word, we can know apostacy is close behind. And when “have a relationship with Jesus” is placed above sound doctrine it will produce the same results.

The Sabbath may be the final issue that seperates and divides the church. But you can be sure that a false philosophy has preceeded this final conflict and many are embracing a false spirituality.

Those who receive the mark of the beast, will have first embraced the spirit of the beast. And that spirit has made strong inroads into modern Adventism. Apparently few really recognize its infiltration and seem paralized by its deceptive agenda. And fewer yet are willing to put all on the line to defend the faith at all cost.

Truth has never been popular either in the church or the world. Don’t be duped into thinking loyalty to the church is ipso facto loyalty to Christ. Often times it is not. And it is fatal to think so.

Keep the bible faith,

Bill Sorensen


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
Sean Pitman said……

“That’s not true. While a personal search for truth is important, Mrs. White clearly understood the role of the Church as an organized body as superior to the personal desires of the individual.”

This is false, Sean. Never does any organization stand over and above the individual. This has been the downfall of every movement God has ordained. When any organization claims to be the highest authority over any individual, that organization has historically ended up commiting the unpardonable sin. Witness as an example the Jews, the early church, much of present Protestantism and even many in Adventism hold this false idea.

It always ends up with a false idea of unconditional election for the instrumentality. When people stand before God in judgment, He will not ask, “Did you follow the church I ordained?” “Did you submit to church authority?” “Have you yielded your will to those who run the church?”

No, No. There is only one question. “Did you follow the bible and carefully consider every passage and doctrine and yield yourself to My will in obedience to My word?”

This is the one and only question. The final and ultimate purpose of salvation is not the corporate church. But the responsible freedom God has ordained for each individual. And only those individuals who join together in agreement with this truth will make up the final church. They agree with God and the bible. They agree with each other. And all are in harmony with God’s will in obedience to His commandments.

At no time do they confess the corporate church holds authority over the individual as an ordained idea received from God. Such an idea undermines growth in spiritual matters. It genders a church of lazy and unmotivated Christians who simply sit around waiting for “the church” to tell them what to do and what to believe. And when “the church” makes a decision, they always respond when challenged concerning the validity of any decision by saying….”Well, the church has decided.”

They yield their personal accountability and responsible moral decisions to “the church”.

If an individual errors from bible truth, this is tragic. But it is still only an individual who will answer to God for his faith and practice. But if the church errors from bible truth, and people are taught to yield to church authority as the highest level of accountability, The devil can and will sweep millions into eternity who have willingly abandon their own personal accountability to the human instrumentality. And this is the result of claiming church authority over individual accountability.

Nothing can or could be more destructive to spiritual grown than this false assumption.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
I am sure some of you either read or post on some of the liberal forums like A-today and Spectrum. Here is where people get massive doses of affirmation in attacks on the historic SDA faith and the Bible. And yet these same ministries will have a booth at the GC sessions.

If the church leaders have no will nor intent to stop these ministries and actually support them by letting them have an influence at the GC sessions, then we can say “small wonder the church is becoming so weak in evangelism”.

Evolution is only one error being supported. [edit]

The church should not be a clearing house for every wind of doctrine and error the devil can advocate and present to the church as a viable explanation of what is truth. The church of today is to a large degree a product of the Dr. Ford rebellion and his false gospel he advocated and his attack on EGW and her ministry.

After the 1980’s it was pluralism and academic freedom with a political agenda that emulates the world and not the word of God. LSU is a product and the fruit of the administrations failure to clearly define doctrine and discipline those who refused to follow the Bible and EGW on basic SDA and Bible truth.

It started with a basic attack on the Investigative judgment and soon branched out into every fundamental teaching of the Bible. In many cases, SDA’s hardly know more than what day to go to church on. And even this is being undermined by the present spirituality.

Are we really preparing people for the true second coming, or, the antichrist who precedes this event? This is no radical question in light of the present spirituality in much of Adventism. Where we have seen hundreds abandon the faith in the last few decades, we may well see thousands in a short period of time follow the same path. [edit]

No doubt, we are near the end.

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