Comment on 2013 Annual Council Votes to Change Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 by Bill Sorensen.
An important part of the discussion concerning the evolution vs. creation scenario, is the issue of church authority and its limits to define and discipline those who oppose any objective given defined by “the church”.
No church can state all the requirements of God defined in the bible and then try to discipline the members if they fail to comply. The law is too complex and comprehensive to make such a statement. But a church can define some definitive doctrines as the lowest common denominator for church members to confess and agree to.
As SDA’s, we don’t set a standard that represents the highest level of spirituality possible for a Christian. We do set a minimal list of “rules” and doctrines and if these are denied, the individual should move on, or expect to be disciplined for failure to either comply and/or support the list. The basic list might include Sabbath keeping on the 7th day. The state of the dead. The thousand year period of time being in heaven and not on this earth. Also, some health practices such as not smoking, drinking and/or other drug abuse.
Certainly a 7 day creation week as a literal week of time is in harmony with the Sabbath issue. A few other things could be mentioned, but the list is not a comprehensive statment concerning the most mature spirituality any believer can attain. It is a minimual list. Neither does it claim nor assume that no one is, or can be a Christian who does not agree to the list. A person may be a Christian, but not a SDA Christian if they deny the list.
Neither does discipline and even disfellowshipment claim the church can determine who is saved and who is not. It can only determine who is qualifed to represent the SDA faith. Any spiritual community has the right and obligation to define its identity and defend it.
We need not apologize if and when a person is fired who attacks church defined doctrines. Nor does “religious freedom” include the right to be a part of a spiritual community and then attack any stated doctrine without discipline. Religious freedom means you can start your own church, and/or oppose any community you are not a part of without secular and civil authority to punish you for doing so.
The liberal agenda in Adventism denies the church’s right to define itself and discipline those within who attack and oppose it. How the final issue is resolved is yet to be determined. But we must accept the fact that any church has the right and authority to disfellowship anyone it decides is not worthy to bear the name of the fellowship. After this point is established, the church can move forward in the action necessary to keep harmony in the church. And on the other side of the coin, if the church does not represent you, you are free to leave.
Bill Sorensen Also Commented
2013 Annual Council Votes to Change Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6
Holly, one of the most basic errors of modern Adventism is a reversal of the method and order we must follow to determine what is truth.
The church today works from the false idea that we must first seek to find unity, and then seek to know what is truth.
In fact, the opposite is the proper procedure for creating a church and maintaining true doctrine.
Truth is always the first goal, and unity will follow as those who seek truth will bind themselves together in a common faith to advocate and support it. Truth creates unity.
Those who oppose it will necessarily abandon the fellowship and start one of their own. When we opt for Pluralism as the church has done, then unity transcends any given truth since no clear truth can be discerned on any given subject.
Rome has one given non-negotiable doctrine. It is simply the infallibility of the church. In which case, the church is always right, no matter what. And anyone can attack any given church doctrine on any given level, all except this one final doctrine of infallibility for the church. This creates a closed unity that can never be broken, unless and until the primary confession of faith is challenged and over thrown.
Adventism today is less than half a step from being a perfect reflection of Rome on this false principle, and in fact, is the main reason many, if not most, lay people never really get involved in sensitive issues concerning doctrinal differences. Always concluding “God will somehow ‘make’ our leaders follow His leading eventually.
Such a conclusion is totally bogus for obvious reasons. If God can “force” anyone or any leader to do His will, why did He not “force” Lucifer to do it in heaven?
We see the Great Controversy is about individual moral accountability by every created being in the Universe. If and when this principle is abandon or lost, all is lost in the Great Controversy. Apparently many don’t see it or know it, but we can be sure that Satan does.
Let’s abandon all this talk about unity, and get down to business examining the teachings of the bible with the final goal being, we know unity will come with pure and sound doctrine. At least with those who cling to this clear bible principle of doctrine before unity.
2013 Annual Council Votes to Change Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6
” So, if you don’t like the position of an organization, no problem – go and form your own organization of like minds. Or, just do your own thing all by yourself. It’s a free country after all (so far)…”
This statement is true in principle, but must be understood in a more comprehensive application.
Every “reformer” began by pointing out the errors of the present church, with the hopes of correcting error and a return to basic and fundamental truth. All the prophets did this.
Jesus, Himself, followed this format until they murdered Him, as was done before His time and was repeated again and again after His resurrection and the final formation of the “new church”.
Some today want to return to basic fundamental bible Adventism, while others desire to change the basic doctrine, teaching, and life style. This second group represents the liberal agenda and have the major influence and control even though many, if not most members have little awareness, or even care that this is true. And this is why the liberal element has so much power and influence.
It has taken about 4 decades to get where we are today. The final point being, no one knows for sure if it is possible for the church to return to its mission and message. So many who are informed, simply work and wait and watch to see how the whole issue works out.
So, who is going to “leave”? As long as the liberals hold control, they certainly won’t leave. And conservatives are not sure there is no hope for a real reformation and return to historic truth, so, they don’t generally leave either.
Some on both sides, do. At some point, it will be obvious as to what decision a person must make, or will make. Until then, the situation will simply degenerate more and more until the situation becomes such an impossibility, that some out ward manifestation will force the final issue and outcome.
Like the war in heaven, or, when Jesus came and created such a situation, or, the Protestant Reformation It does seem more than certain that a physical and obvious split will be the outcome, but exactly how this will happen is not so easily discerned.
2013 Annual Council Votes to Change Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6
After the Dr. Ford fiasco, he had so much sympathy in support of his false application of the gospel and so much protest for “how he was treated”, the church opted for Pluralism.
No more discipline for false doctrine. So the Moral Influence Theory with Maxwell was tolerated and a host of other false ideas were left “untouched” and made their way into Adventism.
So, how can “the church” discipline those who advocate some form of evolution when the church has not disciplined any other false doctrine for decades?
Now some people are becoming deeply concerned about apostacy in the church, and rightly so. But the liberal theology of Pluralism has negated any efforts to correct in any substancial way the error of past, present, and probably future.
Where this will finally go, no one knows for sure. But we can know for a fact that God will eventually create a community of believers who hold the bible as the final rule of faith and practice. Unless the church returns to this confession of faith and demands accountability by way of scripture, we have no hope for the church to be God’s final instrumentality to prepare people for the second coming.
There is now an “awakening” on some level to this reality, and so more and more independent ministries are calling for some genuine reform within the SDA church. The shaking will be a “terrible ordeal” EGW, and to try to avoid it is useless. It will come no matter how hard the political elements try to resolve the issues with a cry for unity at all cost. There will be no unity, but war and division. If we don’t prepare for it, we will be swept away in the flood of false doctrine that has spread all over Adventism.
The church is already split spiritually. There must be a physical split in harmony with the spiritual split. We better know the bible, and I don’t means some superfical understanding many have today. We need to be grounded in the word.
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.
