The subject is “academic freedom” so you are already off …

Comment on Academic Freedom Strikes Again! by Bill Sorensen.

The subject is “academic freedom” so you are already off the subject of creation. When people are wrong, they tend to hide behind a self imposed barrier for protection.

You are wrong, period. Babies are not born “in Christ” and that alone makes them sinners.

As for you comment about Jesus being “born in sinful flesh” this is also bogus. Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh” and this is light years from your false idea.

But the fact that you are wrong is incidental to the fact the majority of the church is wrong as many embrace your false doctrine and try to defend it. The sinful nature means you have a spiritual nature “full of sin”. And this makes you and everyone else a sinner even if they never participate in a single sin outwardly. People commit sin because they are sinners. They don’t become sinners by committing sin.

You can close your mind and harden your heart. You can “wrest the scriptures to your own destruction”. But as Gerald Wolfe has well said, “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.”

You don’t have to know that you are breaking any law, to be breaking the law, and this applies to the moral law as well as any other law. And just because you “run and hide” won’t clear you or anyone else in the final judgment.

In the end, I wish you well. But I will never patronize blatant ignorance and neither will God.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
“Again, we are not born sinners. We are born with a fallen nature, but that’s not the same thing as sin. Sin requires a conscious deliberate decision on the part of a free moral agent. Otherwise, there simply is no sin – as the Bible and Mrs. White very clearly point out.”

Neither the bible or EGW agree with your evaluation. The objective definition of sin just what you stated and quoted, “Sin is transgression of the law” and it does not require that we know we are transgressing to be a transgressor. This is the foundation of all your error. The law is objective and doesn’t care if you know what the law states or not.

LIke a man who is going 50 in a 30 MPH zone. He may not know it, but he is breaking the law. And just because he doesn’t know it does not make him innocent. He is guilty of breaking the law.

So a cop stops him and tells him the speed limit is 30 and he is going 50. And so the cop writes him a ticket for speeding. The man says, “I didn’t see the sign, so I am not guilty of speeding because I didn’t see the sign.”

The cop gives him the ticked and say, “In the future, you will be more care to check to see what the speed limit is. And make no mistake, you are guilty of speeding whether you know it or not.”

Why does Jesus make atonement for sins of ignorance if there is no guilt to make atonement for? You convolute objective guilt with subjective guilt and then claim there is no objective guilt, period. Any rational person can see that your view is not only non-biblical, but nonsense. But all this to defend a false and bogus view and claim we are not born sinners.

Gen. 3:15 is an act of grace by way of the atonement because we are born in sin and God says, “I will put enmity between Satan and the sinful children of Adam.”

Any viable court of law would throw you out of the court room with such a false and bogus argument that a person is not guilty of breaking the law, if they don’t know they are breaking the law. The judge would laugh you out of town if you were the lawyer of the man you were defending.

You might do well to plead grace and leniency based on the circumstances, just like Jesus does for us in the final judgment for sins we have committed in ignorance. He would never plead innocence. He will plead pardon by His blood for the guilt of the sins of ignorance.

Give it up, Sean. You are so wrong, no rational thinking person would agree that a person is not guilty of breaking a law just because they don’t know what the law is.

As for Georges comment below about Mother Teresa. If she kept Sunday in her ignorance she is still breaking the law, but Jesus may plead pardon by way of His atonement if she did not know the truth of the matter. Jesus will never say she is innocent and if so, she would need no atonement nor the blood of Jesus to apply pardon for her guilt in breaking God’s law.

Original sin is so clearly biblical that you have to “song and dance” around the obvious to deny it. All the fancy footwork in the world will not support any false idea that some one is not breaking the law if they don’t know it.

You can either abandon your error and see that you are mistaken in your view, or continue to defend the indefensible. Maybe in the future you will see what you refuse to see today. Historically, prejudice has kept the SDA church from maturing to a true Christian community with a comprehensive view of sin and atonement. For now, you trumpet the same false doctrine the Last Generation Theology ministry endorses.

In the end, it is a blatant attack on the gospel of forgiveness of sin. And the way you butcher up the nature of Christ is tragic and despicable. We are born sinners. Get over it and follow the format God has ordained for the salvation of humanity.

Well, you are still better than other forums who are bigots who refuse to even dialogue on this issue and think they will “save the church” from all apostates when they are apostates themselves. What a mess the church is in with no evidence of any real desire to know the truth that Jesus said, “Will set you free.”

Your defense of creation is reasonably commendable. But in this subject of sin and atonement, your view is far from biblical teaching.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
“Oh please, we’ve been over and over your view of original sin. I’ve endlessly explained to you how this view of yours removes people from being truly free moral agents, removes all actual choice from human beings, and therefore from true moral responsibility for our actions. I thought we were done going around and around on this? Why bring it up here yet again? Enough already. We are all very much aware of your position on this topic. No need to rehash it yet again. It’s unlikely to be any more convincing this time around…”

Your denial that babies need the atonement is the fundamental error in the SDA church, past and present. EGW knew better, but she is ignored. What do you think this means, Sean?

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.” Child Guidance 475

She makes it plain that babies are born lost and guilty of sin. But Jesus had made an atonement so they can be united to Him and be saved. This is basic Christanity, 101.

No one is born with free will. The will is liberated by the atonement so sinners can “opt in” to the kingdom of grace. You deny the basic fundamentals of the Christian faith and try to bypass the cross and then claim no one is guilty until and unless they individually choose to sin. And only then do they need the atonement.

We are not Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, but this is how you present the condition of all babies when they are born. NOT. The weakness of the SDA church has been a consistent refusal to admit the doctrine of original sin, and thus diminish the true meaning and true value of the cross. This is not negotiable, Sean. You are wrong. Period.

Why chide Sunday keepers because they are wrong, or evolution as being wrong when you can’t even define the atonement and how God has ordained the plan of salvation for fallen man?

The sinner is not free to chose until God sets him free to choose. And this follows the atonement that precedes any and every positive action of God toward the sinful human race. Freedom of choice comes only by the atonement and after it provides an extended probation allowing the sinner to opt in. Babies do not bypass the cross as you imply. And no, I will not cut anyone any slack on this issue that is basic to bible Christanity. So she says we receive and inherit from Adam guilt and the sentence of death. No one could make it any plainer than that. Either you believe her, or you don’t. And then she adds that parent have a responsibility to unite their children to Christ and if not, they remain lost, just like they were born.

We do not start out with a clean slate. We are born in a state of sin and must be “born again”. You deny the born again experience for what it means and the value of it. Nothing you say or believe will change the facts of this matter. Original sin is clearly biblical and not negotiable.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
Wesley, I think we agree. God does not bypass reason altogether and says, “Come now, let us reason together…..” So the issue is not reason from any and every perspective. The real issue is what comes first, reason or revelation?

The bible presents the revelation of God by Himself to mankind. He also explains many ideas and concepts concerning Himself and who we are, and the relationship He has ordained for our fellowship. We are free to reason in the context He has stated and as long as we stay within the stated revelation, and not manufacture some agenda of our own, we can experience growth and enjoy a higher level of life that God intends for humanity.

But sinful man begins to draw conclusions about the revelation and its meaning that God has already stated and then manufacture man’s own agenda far outside the biblical norm. So sinful man uses his “reason” to explain something he knows little or nothing about and since God’s revelation is beyond certain limits of human comprehension the answer God has stated is rejected and sinful man opts for an explanation that better suits his own basis of knowledge.

Thus creation vs. evolution creates an enigma beyond the human mind, and faith in the word of God stands supreme for the believer. Things that God has revealed that are understandable, creates faith in what He has revealed that is not. And I think this was certainly a part of the issue that created sin in heaven as Satan demanded an explanation of things he could never have understood, even if God had explained it. So he then concluded this released us from any obligation to trust and or serve God since we could not understand all the reasons why.

My personal conclusion for this enigma is this. While we can not ever understand everything in our relationship with God, we can understand enough to be held accountable for what we know and what we can find out as time continues. This means we will never have absolute knowledge, but will have adequate knowledge to build our faith even though there will always be questions that we can not know the answer as our minds are limited on many levels.

“Canst thou by searching find out God?” Only on some limited level adequate to build a viable faith and trust Him implicitly about what we can not and do not know. Surely the book of Job demonstrates this principle and Job vindicates God’s challenge and test that Satan created by his false insinuation of Job’s loyalty. In this context, Job wanted to know why. A real legitimate question from his perspective. In this situation, we see that God could not tell Job why, or it would have destroyed the test. The principle remains on all issues. Do we still trust God by what we do know and not lose our faith by what we don’t? Did Job know enough to retain his loyalty to God? The answer is, yes. And this is and will be our final test as well.

Those who demand absolute knowledge based on clear human reason will never maintain a viable faith and will stumble and fall when the chips are down. Hopefully, we will be as faithful as Job even if we don’t understand all the issues at any given time. But the final point is this, we must always let biblical revelation transcend human reason, for human reason can not “find out God.” But God will see that we have adequate knowledge and understanding if we will “seek and ye shall find.”

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…]

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.