Your system of reasoning about new born babies is faulty, …

Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by Bill Sorensen.

Your system of reasoning about new born babies is faulty, and thus leads you into a false conclusion about sin and the human family. Babies are not born with an inherent sense of good and/or evil as you suggest. Neither are they born in some limbo morality with no leaning one way or the other.

“The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Ps. 58:1

Infants do not need to be taught about sin or how to sin. They sin naturally and need no outside stimulus to cause them to do it. From the very outset at birth, the Christian influence must be present on some level as a means of grace and avenue for the Holy Spirit to work and educate a born sinner the morality of right and wrong. And only in this sense is Christ “the light that lighteth even man that cometh into the world.” John 1:9. This is a reality by way of the atonement of the cross. No cross, no enlightenment for the human family. Man is lost, condemned, and the will is dead to think or do good on any level. This is the true meaning of original sin and its effect on the human family by way of Adam’s choice and decision, not our own.

God uses every means of grace to communicate Himself and His will to the human family. Even sinful society has some elements of truth passed on from generation to generation that God can and will use to communicate.

Parents become the first means of grace if they teach and instruct some elements of bible morality to their children. Even civil righteousness is communicated as they teach their children to share, and say “I am sorry” and “please” and “thank you” in this sinful world. Without the Holy Spirit’s influence in all these endeavors, parent’s efforts would be useless. Man has no inherent good or righteousness.

It is worthless to present the idea to anyone that all they have to do is choose to be good by virtue of some natural goodness inherent at birth. Grace by way of the atonement is the reality of any ability to choose. So the ability to choose the gospel truth, is inherent in the presentation of the gospel itself. This biblical truth seems to be obscure in your thinking and thus your reasoning about salvation is faulty at best.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
“How do you know “the truth” when you see it? How do you know how to judge right from wrong?”

As I said, Sean, you learn it from your parents. But we have both stated our view and so I will conclude with this statement by EGW about “how” God writes the law on our heart.

“Enmity against Satan is not natural to the human heart; it is implanted by the grace of God. When one who has been controlled by a stubborn, wayward will is set free, and yields himself wholeheartedly to the drawing of God’s heavenly agencies, a miracle is wrought; so also when a man who has been under strong delusion comes to understand moral truth. Every time a soul is converted, and learns to love God and keep His commandments, the promise of God is fulfilled, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.” Ezekiel 36:26. The change in human hearts, the transformation of human characters, is a miracle that reveals an ever-living Saviour, working to rescue souls. A consistent life in Christ is a great miracle. In the preaching of the word of God, the sign that should be manifest now and always is the presence of the Holy Spirit, to make the word a regenerating power to those that hear. This is God’s witness before the world to the divine mission of His Son. {DA 407.1}

How then does God “write His law on our heart”? It is by objective revelations of His love and we respond in love as love is taught and not some “hocus pocus” spiritualistic non-definable quality. Your view lays the ground work for a non-biblical spiritualism the claims right and/or wrong is some inherent enlightenment apart from objective revelations of the bible. So, I conclude my case which is in harmony with EGW’s explanation in the above quote.


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
“And, this is all based on one very simple concept that even very young children inherently know and understand: “Do to others what you’d have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12).

Sean, this is so obviously false, that any parent will tell you that a child must be taught morality as well as civil righteousness. The selfishness of the child is so apparent even in the basic infant state. Where do you come up with these conclusions? Notice this EGW comment.

Satan’s Power May Be Broken.–Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man’s behalf. . . . Christ’s perfect example and the grace of God are given him to enable him to train his sons and daughters to be sons and daughters of God. It is by teaching them, line upon line, precept upon precept, how to give the heart and will up to Christ that Satan’s power is broken. {CG 475.3}

No one is born with a basic knowledge of good and evil. It must be taught, and if not taught, evil will simply reign. I hope your scientific knowledge and understanding is better than your theology of sin and atonement.


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
“Again, that’s not true since even the heathen can know and express love without ever reading or hearing about the life of Christ.”

They many not have heard about Jesus in a direct way. None the less, Christian principles and ideals have been handed down from generation to generation even in heathen lands. How do you think the heathen know about marriage? All basic morality is taught from generation to generation and the Holy Spirit always works through some objective revelation of truth. The only way the wise men of the east could have known anything about Christ was their study of the scripture. And while nature is helpful in some sense to convey some aspects of truth, nature is so corrupted by sin that without objective knowledge of truth passed down generation to generation, no one could possibly by way of nature in and of itself discern true morality.

We reject evolution in part because of this fact. No one could find out or know God unless He specifically revealed Himself by way of prophets and historic truth that came from Adam as God had communicated it to him. The point is this, the Holy Spirit that “writes the law on our heart” must have some objective reference of truth or there is no writing the law on our hearts. What you suggest is spiritualism and a spirit ethic apart from divine revelation. A baby responds to love because love is revealed by way of the parents, especially the mother.

Then you quote EGW who stated in light of the cross.

“”It is the grace that Christ implants in the soul that creates the enmity against Satan. Without this grace, man would continue the captive of Satan, a servant ever ready to do his bidding. The new principle in the soul creates conflict where hitherto had been peace. The power which Christ imparts, enables man to resist the tyrant and usurper.” (EGW, R&H, 1882).”

What she states only affirms that we receive nothing by way of Adam and have no ability by way of Adam to know or do anything moral. The will is dead. We are “sold in sin”. When you reference you comments by way of the cross, you do not understand what the doctrine of original sin is. It means Adam has sold us out, totally, completely with no Holy Spirit influence and no possible “free will” until and unless God acts in some objective way to create the possibility for man to comprehend truth and then decide for good or evil. So, Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32.

Your whole theory demeans the real meaning and true value of the atonement by which God can act in a positive way toward sinful human beings born in sin lost, guilty and condemned to eternal damnation by Adam’s choice, not ours. And in light of the cross we are liberated to choose to accept the atonement, or, remain lost condemned and guilty. We are not “born free” as many would claim. But we are born bound over to Satan to serve sin and are only liberated by the gospel in its various revelations and applications in the human experience. And it is not by some “hocus pocus” God writing His law on the heart of a baby, nor is the law written on the heart of anyone except by a revelation of objective truth that we can evaluate and understand and thus respond to.


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.