If the Creation Account Isn’t True…
We wouldn’t expect any other response from you, Dr Taylor.

What is sad is you profess to be a Christian while undermining everything a Christian believes in.

Apparently, the little girl did not claim to believe the bible and then support evolution.

Your duplicity is showing……

---

If the Creation Account Isn’t True…
David asks…..

“Bill, it speaks poorly of us that the unconverted feel comfortable among us, and feel no need to leave the church. What kind of Christian am I, that unbelievers in my fellowship have no plans ever to believe? That the unconverted feel comfortable in my church, calling me one of them?

It is not a worse commentary on me than on them?”

David, I don’t think they feel very “comfortable” around me. I don’t comment a lot in SS class. But when I do, I think most people listen, as I am unually making a counter point from the position taken. And, NO, I am really not a trouble maker in the church.

But many, if not most, know where I stand on many issues. When my wife and I started attending a church closer to our home, we would not move our membership because of the women elders as well as a number of other issues, like the music, dress, etc.

So people come and ask me why. And I tell them. And then some will say, “Well, we don’t believe in these things either, but…….”

But we still financially support the local church for the same reason Jesus told Peter to pay the temple tax. The church was in transition in Jesus’ day. And I think it is the same today.

Jesus healed the blind man in John 9. In the end, the leaders threw him out of the church. We have no information of what the outcome was, except Jesus affirmed his faith, but did not tell him to make peace with the church.

The fact is, David, I can’t tell every individual exactly what their duty is in light of the present church situation. I am not even sure what my duty is in every situation.

But I can truthfully say this, I have more fellowship and freedom in my jail ministry Sabbath afternoon than I do in SS. In that situation, I have the “bully pulpit” when in SS I don’t. And I might add, I believe many in jail are learning more about the bible in my bible class, than most members in the SS class at church.

Now and then, I do a bible study on church authority and the non-qualification of women to be elders. I have never had a single class member challenge this position. Oh, and by the way, the ward I teach in are all women. But like I said, “I have the bully pulpit” and maybe some would disagree and just not say so.

And finally this, many would be surprised at how much bible knowledge many people have in jail. We have a good spiritual time, and many tell me when they are getting out, they will keep the bible Sabbath. Of course, that don’t mean they will, but at least they know the truth, don’t they?

Bill Sorensen

---

If the Creation Account Isn’t True…
This exhortation to D.M. Canright is applicable to more than a few who hang around the SDA church today. EGW was straight forward in dealing with those who abandon and/or attack bible Adventism.

Canright left the church, but not today. People who would agree with him, refuse to “go away” and continue to sow doubt, skepticism, and unbelief while professing a certain loyalty to the SDA church.

Maybe if she were alive today, things would be a lot different. At any rate, here is a portion of her letter to him.

“Dear Brother:

I was made sad to hear of your decision, but I have had reason to expect it. It is a time when God is testing and proving His people. Everything that can be shaken will be shaken. Only those will stand whose souls are riveted to the eternal Rock. Those who lean to their own understanding, those who are not constantly abiding in Christ, will be subject to just such changes as this. If your faith has been grounded in man, we may then expect just such results. {2SM 162.1}
But if you have decided to cut all connection with us as a people, I have one request to make, for your own sake as well as for Christ’s sake: keep away from our people, do not visit them and talk your doubts and darkness among them. Satan is full of exultant joy that you have stepped
163
from beneath the banner of Jesus Christ, and stand under his banner. He sees in you one he can make a valuable agent to build up his kingdom. You are taking the very course I expected you would take if you yielded to temptation.” {2SM 162.2}

He left, of course. We could wish others of the same opinion would do the same.

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.

---