Neither Spectrum nor A-today have an interest in advocating or …

Comment on Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict by Bill Sorensen.

Neither Spectrum nor A-today have an interest in advocating or sustaining bible Adventism. Neither should be allowed access to the GC sessions by having a booth to advertise their ministries as supporting ministries of Seventh-day Adventism.

Much more discipline should be forth coming in many areas of church administration. At least someone in authority was willing to condemn open and flagrant attacks on the bible. This is not just Adventism, but basic Christanity and fundamental Protestantism. This is so obvious we might wonder if it is simply a “red herring” to divert our attention from other important issues that may seem obscure to the minds of some.

While this error needs to be corrected, it is only the beginning of the necessary reform in many areas of the church today. Hopefully, a genuine revival of true godliness in every area of church doctrine and practice will soon follow.

The church will get smaller before it gets bigger.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
I think we need to consider the philosophy behind the modern movement in Christanity in general. And then see how this philosophy has affected and infiltrated Adventism.

EGW has said something to this effect, “As the Jews rejected Christ and the gospel in their defense of the law, the last generation of professing Christians will abandon the full import of the law in the name of the gospel.”

Thus, the Jews judged harshly with little or no real application of grace. And it led to a self righteous attitude of exclusiveness and demonstrated a false picture of God and His kingdom. They assumed to determine who could and would be saved as individuals and who would not. To preceive an over all picture of the kingdom of God by way of scripture, and then warn people in general of the final judgment is not only right and needful, but commendable for the believing community to advocate truth in this context.

Catholicism, like the Jews claim the authority for the church to judge final salvation and thus we have “St Peter” at the gate to decide who can go and in who can not. This illustrates the false authority Rome has claimed for itself concerning judgment and salvation.

Now we have in the world today an “apostate Protestant” view of salvation which claims we can “judge” no one on any level since we can not judge their final salvation. Modern Adventism has embraced this false view of judging and thus allowed some gross evil to come into the church. Not only refusing to condemn sin, but actually embracing it and pushing individuals into high positions of influence and authority who have little or no qualification to be there.

If is it sin to pre-judge individuals as though we can know the final outcome and thus condemn anyone who we discern is not in harmony with the bible, then we can ask, “How is this worse than claiming we can forgive anyone with no accountability?”

I strongly suspect we are “forgiving” people even God won’t forgive and in so doing, place ourselves above God. Is it more self righteous to condemn when God has not condemned, than to forgive what God has not forgiven?

This is no small issue. The only way you can “sell” universalism, the final deception, is to warp forgiveness beyond its biblical perspective and allow every evil in the church in the name of the gospel, coupled with the false idea that no one can “judge” on any level.

We must distinguish between the final judgment of God at the end of the world, and present on-going judgment day by day in the human experience. The church not only has a right to judge, but must necessarily do so to preserve any semblance of bible Christanity in the Christian community. And while the judgment of the church is limited and relative, it is none the less approved by God who says “Judge righteous judgment”.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged” certainly does not apply in this situation. But is continually quoted and used to negate individual and church responsibility in administrating the principles of God’s kingdom in the church.

Thus, we “rock and roll” around the golden calf, wear anything we please, and worship “we know not what” all in the name of this false gospel. The longer the church continues to refuse to act in righteous judgment, the more difficult it becomes to do so as time goes by. The devil gets a firmer and firmer grip on the church and his influence increases as he is not opposed openly and decidely by those in responsible positions.

The conflict with LSU and creation vs. evolution is a classic example of this reality. And the organized church response is equally expected based on past activity or non-activity as the case may be.

Unless we understand spiritualism (a false gospel), we can not preceive what exactly is happening nor know how to deal with it individually as church members or a corporate church movement.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
I re-read this whole thread. It was nice to see a post by Hubb. Hope you Barbara are doing well. I don’t know many of you and I am sure few of you know me.

I used to post on A-today until the run me off and took away my access to post. Same with Spectrum. They believe in “freedom” as long as you don’t expose them as the apostates they are. I can still read comments on both forums and do occasionally. David Read does well. Seems to be well educated and defends the historic faith.

But the point is this, this forum is the exact opposite in types of posters who generally support the historic Christian faith and especially bible Adventism. Of course, you have Geanna and a few others who oppose any correction of error and seem to support “pluralism” as a viable option in sustaining the Christian faith. For some of us at least, such and options is absurd. The church is not a “clearing house” for every “Tom, Dick and Harry” to express and advocate their false ideas and then claim the right to do so under the heading of “Christian freedom”.

Churches state their understanding of the bible. And while it is true, there will always be some latitude in understanding and application, none the less, certain clear and objective positions are stated which are non-negotiable. For SDA’s, this would necessarily include….
1. Creation as revealed in Gen. 1.
2. The Seventh day Sabbath.
3. State of the dead.
4. Issues on the visible and literal second coming.
5. 1844 and the pre-advent judgment.
6. Validity of the ministry of EGW.

And we might name a few more. But this should give us some idea of how a church defines itself. If you substancially disagree with certain stated positions that actually define and identify the church and its own stated mission, then in all honesty, you should simply withdraw and go your own way.

Historically, this is always what has happened. Men like Canright, Conradi, Ballenger….etc simply eventually withdrew as they realized their understanding was not in harmony with basic fundamental bible Adventism. Not so today. Men like Dr. Ford and a host of other want to remodel the church doctrine and attack and deny the historic faith. They don’t want to leave perhaps for financial considerations in some cases.

Some do leave, of course. And their honesty is more commendable than those who emulate Satan who went around heaven claiming loyalty to God will working earnestly to undermine His kingdom and government.

Today, we see honest bible believing SDA’s come alive and state their convictions on this blog. I know many of you have prayed not knowing exactly what to do about many issues of evil coming into the church. Some leaders have the same concerns. Others see no need for reform and support most of the present activity on worship style, dress, music and host of other issues including women’s ordination.

This issue with LSU has given many an opportunity to speak up in defense of not only the SDA position, but historic Christanity as well.

God bless all who have posted in defense of bible Adventism. We all should take courage from each other knowing we are not alone and that God has many more who will stand up for truth as we near the end. I for one am encouraged by the many posts in support of our faith.

God bless all who posted in defense of His word.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
Geanna, you may mean well, but you are not necessarily right in your evaluation. Neither are you necessarily wrong. Each situation must be dealt with based on the circumstances of the situation.

Many feel it is way past time for patronizing and condecending dialogue. It is time for clear statements and actions in harmony with this important issue. You seem to disagree with almost everything posted. Since you “read EGW” have you ever read this exhortation? If so, when and where should it be applied?

“When there are among God’s people those who have departed from the path of humble obedience, those who have exalted self, those who have united with Satan in accusing and condemning the men appointed of God to be ministers of salvation, shall we keep silence for fear of hurting their feelings? When there are men in the church who love riches more than righteousness, and who stand ready to take advantage of their fellow men by unjust dealings, shall we make no protest? And when men standing in the position of leaders and teachers work under the power of spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we keep silent, for fear of injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled? Satan will use every advantage that he can obtain to cause souls to become beclouded and perplexed in regard to the work of the church, in regard to the word of God, and in regard to the words of warning which He has given through the testimonies of His Spirit, to guard His little flock from the subtleties of the enemy. {SpTB02 9.2}
When men stand out in defiance against the counsel of God, they are warring against God. Is it right
for those connected with such ones to treat them as if they were in perfect harmony with them, making no difference between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not? Though they be ministers or medical missionaries, they have dishonored Christ before the forces of the loyal and the disloyal. Open rebuke is necessary, to prevent others from being ensnared. {SpTB02 9.3}
To believe that evil must not be condemned because this would condemn those who practise the evil, is to act in favor of falsehood. If, after a man has been given many cautions and warnings, to save him from his hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, he takes offense, and refuses to accept the message graciously sent him from heaven, and puts aside the reproof of the Holy Spirit, his heart and conscience become hardened, and he is in great darkness. {SpTB02 10.1}
The enmity that God has put in our hearts against deceptive practises, must be kept alive, because these practises endanger the souls of those who do not hate them. All deceptive dealings, all untruthfulness regarding the Father and the Son, by which their characters are presented in a false light, are to be recognized as grievous sins. There are those who have become apt scholars in this deceptive work. Those who can not see the danger that is threatening the Lord’s heritage because of these things will soon feel no enmity against the arch deceiver. Those who stand in positions of trust in our institutions are to show constant vigilance, else they will be taken captive. In words and deportment, in all their business transactions, they are to show the exactitude that will win the commendation, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” {SpTB02 10.2}

This was her response to the Kellogg issue of Pantheism. Is the issue of creation vs. evolution less important? I think not. The principles she has stated in how and why we should oppose false teaching seems to apply clearly over this present issue. You apparently disagree.

Ellen White stated names of individuals many times who opposed truth. We need not patronize individuals for “fear of hurting their feeling or their influence”. Especially when it is clearly obvious they oppose the bible and its clear teaching.

So, as many have concluded, the lines are being drawn. Where we stand and how we respond is important for a preservation of bible truth.

The church will no doubt get smaller before it gets bigger.

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