The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Dear Bill

“Thank you very much for your exposition on the good book. I greatly appreciated it and am that much better informed.”

Your agnostic friend
Ken

Ken, like Paul, I could wish you were not only better informed, but a confessed believer.

I don’t think “agnostic” would be a very commendable confession in the mind of Jesus.

In the end, it is simply a soffisticated way of saying “I don’t believe it,” without sounding antagonistic to Christanity. And Jesus says, “He that is not for me, is against me.”

You said…..

“I hope I was not being trite in my comments. The Bible is a important fascinating, book, irrespective as to whether one believes it is the word, or inspired word of God. Perhaps all sacred texts qualify in that respect as the authors seem to be inspired by something outside of themselves that speaks of the divine.”

To compare the bible with other books as having some equal level of inspiration and/or authority is “trite”, Ken. I don’t think you meant it that way, but if you carefully consider the bible’s own declaration of authority over every other revelation, then you could see how the bible itself would judge your evaluation of it as less than it claims for itself.

Of course, we judge the bible, don’t we? But we must see that in the end, the bible judges us. And in the very end, every knee will bow and confess its authority over all humanity. Sad to say, for many, if not most, it will be too late to repent and every lost soul will say, “I knew it was true, I just didn’t want to believe it.”

So, Paul says, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”

An intensely serious business, wouldn’t you say? One thing that impresses me about the bible is how intense the writers are. They are utterly consumed with the necessity to understand their testimony and take it to heart. I could only wish I could comprehend and grasp the same spirit that inspired their testimony and learn to appreciate more fully their import and application on my own life.

I wish that not only for myself, but for you and every other soul seeking a knowledge of God and His will. The devil has had marvelous success in undermining this reality and destroying the intensity of the bible on the mind of modern man.

We must be near the end.

Bill Sorensen

---

The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
PK said…..

“Fortunately, the Church did not vigorously expel those who disagreed with the early antitrinitarian views.”

It was not a concensus stated position of the church one way or the other. You compare apples and oranges by considering an issue that was not agreed on nor declared one way or the other, and then try to apply this to present day positions that have been clearly defined and historically accepted as what the church believes and supports.

And then use “the gospel” to defend Pluralism as a viable option. The stated positions are at least for the most part, non-negotiable.

In one sense, “the church” has no official position on anything except one and that is this, the bible is the one infallible rule of faith and practice.

None the less, over the years, certain concensus biblical positions are stated as accepted by the church in general, and people are expected to agree, or, at the bare minimum, show from the bible in what way any given position is in error.

If people “distort what you say”, then qualify and re-qualify as many times as is necessary so there can be no mis-understanding as to your meaning and application.

Even Jesus said, “Anybody can say ‘Lord, Lord’ but it has no meaning unless it is defined in its biblical context.”

So, Jesus will say, “I never knew you.”

What a shock to those who were sure they had a clear understanding of the issues. And even thought they were Christians.

Not according to Jesus. But the challenge is to all of us, isn’t it? So, if you want to be defensive about what you believe, show us from the bible where you are right and those who oppose you are wrong.

Is EGW wrong in defending and supporting moral perfection? If so, show from the bible where she is wrong. She calls for sinlessness.

Do you suppose that after Christ gave His precious life to redeem the beings He created He would fail to give them sufficient power to enable them to overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony? He has power to save every individual. At the time of His ascension He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” For our redemption all power is given to Him who stood at the head of humanity. For nearly six weeks the Sinless One fought a battle with the powers of darkness in the wilderness of temptation, overcoming not on His account, but on our account, thus making it possible for every son and daughter of Adam to overcome through the merit of His sinlessness. . . . {CTr 199.5}
Only those who practice holiness in this life will see the King in His beauty. Put away all vain, trifling talk, and everything of a frivolous and sensational nature. Do not engross your mind with thoughts of worldly entertainments and pleasures. Engage in the work of saving your soul. If you should lose your soul, it would have been better for you never to have been born. But you need not lose your soul. You may use every moment of this God-given life to His name’s glory. Strengthen yourself to resist the powers of darkness, that they shall not obtain a victory over you.—Manuscript 110, 1901 (Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, pp. 174-176). {CTr 199.6}

Those who believe on Christ and obey His commandments are not under bondage to God’s law; for to those who believe and obey, His law is not a law of bondage, but of liberty. Everyone who believes on Christ, everyone who relies on the keeping power of a risen Saviour that has suffered the penalty pronounced upon the transgressor, everyone who resists temptation and in the midst of evil copies the pattern given in the Christ life, will through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ become a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. {HP 146.5}

Nobody believes these quotes anymore. It is not popular to teach a complete and final victory over sin. We don’t go around asking anyone if they have attained it. Such a question is not even relevant to the issue.

Does the bible teach it is all we need to ask. Not, “Has anyone attained it?”

God will decide that issue. But we can be certain of one clear fact, anyone who denies the possibility will never attain it. You can not do what you are convinced it is impossible to do. And even more deceptive, when you are convinced it is not even necessary.

And it may well be that anyone who does attain it, won’t know it. But you can be sure of one thing, they won’t deny the possibility of such an experience.

And we can be sure of one other fact, there is no “sinlessness” outside of Christ. No one is sinless in and of themselves. And we can know another certainty, neither was Adam sinless in and of himself. Nor are any of the unfallen angels sinless in and of themselves.

This is the original lie Lucifer started in heaven and deceived a third of the angels by it. Sinlessness is by way of a relationship, not some inherent quality in a created being.

Only God is inherently holy. Rev. 15:4

But all believers are holy in Christ.

Bill Sorensen

---

The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Dr. Stone said…..

“Ron Stone M.D. Reply May 6, 2011 at 2:37 pm @Steve Billiter, You’re correct in believing that those who do not believe our biblically based ideas should leave and join some other denomination.

However, the principal concept of liberals and progressives is that they not only want to “believe” differently, they want to change the SDA Church to comply with these new revelations they have so recently discovered!

They will not leave, but instead want to teach, preach, and espouse these ideas to our students and members.”

We should be coming to a clear revelation that the political power in the church transcends the need for spiritual purity.

The “powers that be” would gladly support any spiritual concept that is biblical if they can do so and maintain the statis quo. But…..if such is not possible, then it is far more important to “hold the church together” by any means available.

During the reformation period, many agreed with Luther and others about the need and necessity for spiritual restoration. But…..when the chips were down, as Father Staupitz told Luther, “I can not choose to destroy my church.”

Sad to say, “the church” becomes an idol for many people and in most cases, they don’t even know it. They assume, “loyalty to the church, is ipso facto, loyalty to Christ”. We could wish this were true and in some cases, loyalty to the church is loyalty to Christ. But only if and when “the church” defends the word of God and demands accountability to the bible.

We see this happening less and less in modern Adventism. Where the bible is more important than the political structure.

How many know this statement by EGW and its implications?…..

“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}”

Notice, EGW uses the word “she” in reference to the church. So this is not simply individuals that this statement applies to. We all know we will individually be judged by God, and the principle applies to individuals. But here, she makes it plain it is not simply individuals, but “the church” as a corporate structure.

At any rate, this statement is not one most church leaders quote since it is not so flattering and assuring as some others that affirm the final victory of the church. We can only conclude that the bible message God gave the pioneers will “go through to the end” and not necessarily the corporate structure. In this context EGW has well said….

” Today, Sunday, I have not attended meeting, but have had to visit considerably. I am grateful to God for the strength and freedom and power of His spirit in bearing my testimony, although it has made the least impression upon many minds than at any period before in my history. Satan has seemed to have power to hinder my work in a wonderful degree, but I tremble to think what would have been in this meeting if we had not been here. God would have worked in some way to prevent this spirit brought to the meeting, having a controlling power. But we are not the least discouraged. We trust in the Lord God of Israel. The truth will triumph and we
179
mean to triumph with it. {3SM 178.3}”

Hopefully, we all can agree with this statement, even if the corporate church is “weighed and found wanting.”

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.

---