Bill, You wrote: No one can have “free will”, George, until

Comment on Academic Freedom Strikes Again! by Sean Pitman.

Bill,

You wrote:

No one can have “free will”, George, until Jesus comes by way of the Holy Spirit and liberates the will by way of the gospel. And the Holy Spirit comes by way of the cross and grace. This whole discussion is on the value and importance of being “born again”. So I ask you and Sean, “What is the point of being ‘born again’ if you are already free to chose to do good or evil?”

Freedom of will exists before the Gospel message is ever heard – for everyone with a normally-functioning reasoning mind. Everyone is given the ability to recognize and choose between good from evil as a Divine gift (Genesis 3:15). Everyone is free to choose the good and reject the evil – even those who have never read the Bible or heard the name of Jesus (Romans 2:14-15). So, what value is there in being a born again Christian? – if even the honest and loving non-Christians can and will be saved? Well, because it makes one’s life better and more hopeful and joyful here and now and aides one is following the voice of the Holy Spirit.

It is a serious mistake to argue that no one is born with a free will. This is like saying that everyone is born as a robot with no ability to choose. If so, no one would be guilty of sin since no amoral robot could be accused of sinning. Sin requires that the ability to make moral choices be in existence for the agent in question. This implies, therefore, that everyone is given this ability – as a gift of God. This freedom to choose right from wrong is not limited to the Christian. And, this reality is highlighted in both the writings of the biblical authors as well as the writings of Ellen White.

“Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God.” – Ellen White, Desire of Ages, p. 638

Even you seem to be aware of this reality, to at least some degree, since you write:

In this world, even an unbeliever has some awareness of right and wrong, but this is only because of the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit before being “born again.” God does nothing by way of a relationship to fallen man except by way of the cross. Adam brought on us all the verdict of condemnation, sin and death. To understand the doctrine of original sin, you must take Christ and the cross out of the equation.

Of course the cross makes salvation possible for everyone since all have sinned and fallen short (Romans 3:23). This means that all free moral agents have deliberately rebelled against something they knew was right and deliberately did something they knew was wrong. That’s what sin is – a deliberate transgression against the Law. No one is accused for what Adam did, but for what each one of us have deliberately done ourselves – as free moral agents who are well aware of our actions.

It is therefore only by the cross of Jesus that grace can be offered to those who are actually guilty of personal rebellion against the Law of Love. You cannot claim that you are condemned for Adam’s sin when you yourself have not sinned. That’s mistaken theology. You and I are in a position of condemnation and the need of unmerited grace because we ourselves have done things that we knew were wrong. That’s why we are in need of God’s grace…

Of course, we are also in need of God’s power to overcome our fallen tendencies. However, it isn’t for these fallen tendencies that we are judged and found wanting. My own natural fallen tendencies might have made sin attractive to me, but it isn’t the tendencies themselves that are sinful – but the actual freewill choice to go along with these fallen tendencies that is sinful.

We are born sinners by way of Adam and we are not free to choose anything good. This shows the full value of the atonement that people like Sean limit to claim no one is a sinner unless and until they sin. Then they need the atonement. This is blatantly bogus.

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.

What you guys do is miss the first basic step in atonement and redemption and assume no one needs the atonement until and unless they know they are committing sin. This is a superficial definition of sin and will not even consider “sins of ignorance” by claiming if you are ignorant, it is not sin.

Jesus Himself explained that being honestly ignorant means that there is no guilt for sin (John 9:41). Sin requires a conscious deliberate rebellion against something that is known to be right and good. Otherwise, there simply is no sin – even if a fallen tendency for sin already exists.

This is the key stone of the bible and Protestant Reformation. Believers are always in a state of forgiving grace because we are always sinners in this life. By the power of God, we do not “commit” sin. But this does not mean we are not still sinful by nature.

That’s a mistaken view. We have fallen natures from birth, and even after being “born again”, but this does not mean that we are “sinners” once we leave the life of sin behind and stop sinning – through the power of God. That’s the whole point of Jesus taking on our fallen natures yet not sinning – not even once. If He did that, so can I – through the power of God that gave Him the victory in fallen flesh.

And to appeal to the nature of Christ and claim He is a sinner just like us is blasphemy. He was not born in sin, nor did He have a sinful nature. He was “born of the Holy Spirit” and was sinless from start to finish. We are not “born of the Holy Spirit” and unless we are “born again” by way of the Holy Spirit we are lost, we remain lost as guilty, condemned evil sinners that we are.

Oh please. Jesus was not a “sinner” just because He was born with a fallen nature. Again, you have to actually commit a sin to be a sinner. “He had the same nature as the sinner although He knew no sin, in order that He might be able to condemn sin in the flesh and might be able to sympathize with those who were in the difficulties, dangers, and temptations that beset His own path while He walked with men.” (EGW, Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 176).

You continually fail to recognize what sin actually is. Sin is a deliberate choice. It’s no accident or automatic thing. It’s based on a deliberate decision by a free moral agent. Otherwise, there simply is no sin. If anyone else had lived as Jesus lived, that person would have every right to claim that he/she does not need Jesus to die in their place. Of course, no one can honestly make this claim since everyone has deliberately done wrong…

As EGW has well said, “In ourselves we are sinners, but in Christ we are righteous.”

This is because we have all actually deliberately chosen to sin – not because we were born with Adam’s guilt. Mrs. White asks: “What is sin?” Then, she answers in line with the biblical definition of sin: “The transgression of the law.” (SM, Book 1, p. 341). She never ever says that sin is what we inherit from Adam or the fallen human nature. That’s not sin. That may be what leads us into sin, but that is not sin in and of itself. We are all guilty of sin because we have all established our own individual guilt. Only with the Power of God acting in our lives can we be made righteous without being held guilty of our past decisions to sin. Again, however, this has nothing to do with your concept of original sin.

Again and again Mrs. White and the Bible very clearly state that Jesus took on both our physical as well as our mental condition – yet without sin. “He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature . . . He was made like unto his brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical . . . Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of condescension, He would be enabled to pour out His blood in behalf of the fallen race.” (Ellen White, Manuscript 166, 1898, p. 9, 10 and Manuscript 181.3 and RH February 10, 1885 par. 7). She goes on to explain:

“Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity.” (Ellen G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7 (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald Publishing Association, 1953-1957), 929)

In other words, Jesus was our example because He came and lived in our fallen condition with our fallen natures – yet without sin. That means that we can also do the same thing that He did through the power of God.

The Bible also never teaches that anyone is guilty and deserves condemnation or death because of the sins or crimes committed by someone else (Ezekiel 18:2-4, 20; Jeremiah 31:29, 30; Romans 2:5, 6; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 10:13; Galatians 6:7, 8; Revelation 20:12, 13; 21:8).

You simply refuse to deal with such clear unequivocal statements . . .

As Daniel Ferraz put it:

The teaching of “original sin,” stemmed from Greek paganism, and was further channeled by the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa, Augustine (AD 354-430) — himself greatly influenced by Greek philosophy — into the Roman Catholic Church and held by the majority of Protestants since the Augsburg Confession in AD 1530. Today, the dogma relies primarily on bad exegesis of Psalm 51:5 and inconsistent interpretation of Romans 5:12, 18, 19 (with the rest of the book of Romans) and with the complete witness of Scripture. Christians must follow divine revelation over and above the prevailing and pervasive Roman Catholic Church tradition and Greek philosophy.

it is the false belief in “original sin,” and the presuppositions that derive from it, that logically require that Christ assume the human nature of man before the fall, to ostensibly free Him from the presumed guilt of “original sin.” The next logical step, of course, is accepting the false belief of the immaculate conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus, so that He could receive a sinless human nature. If we accept this, then we must go further and accept that the Roman Catholics are correct in venerating Mary as the “mother of God,” and even “co-redemptrix.” But these are hardly positions that Bible believing Christians can substantiate. False belief about the nature of sin leads to false belief about the nature of salvation…

The dogma of “original sin” is anti-Christian, in that it goes against, and seeks to stand in the place of, the true teachings the Bible regarding the human nature of Christ.

Daniel Ferras, The Humanity of the Son of God Is Everything to Us, Vol. 23, No. 2 – Link

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
Bill,

You wrote:

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.

The moral law, the Royal Law of Love in particular, is not like state laws since it is written on the hearts of everyone – even those who have never read the Bible (Romans 2:15).

Beyond this, you claim that sin exists before the Law is even transgressed! You claim that sin exists simply when someone with a fallen nature exists – before a single transgression is committed! This is like your police officer giving a ticket to someone for speeding just for being tempted to speed – even before the law is actually broken.

That’s your position and it is this position of yours that makes no sense whatsoever, paints God as arbitrary and capricious, makes it look like Jesus didn’t really live as I have to live and is not a valid representative, and goes against what both the Bible and Ellen White have to say about this issue:

“He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature… He was made like unto his brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical… Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of condescension, He would be enabled to pour out His blood in behalf of the fallen race.” (Ellen White, Manuscript 166, 1898, p. 9, 10 and Manuscript 181.3 and RH February 10, 1885 par. 7)

He had the same nature as the sinner although He knew no sin, in order that He might be able to condemn sin in the flesh and might be able to sympathize with those who were in the difficulties, dangers, and temptations that beset His own path while He walked with men. (EGW, Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 176)

“It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and himself endure the strength of Satan’s fierce temptations, that he might understand how to succor those who should be tempted.” (EGW, RH December 31, 1872)

“He would take man’s fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam. He would overcome Satan, and in thus doing he would open the way for the redemption of those who would believe on him from the disgrace of Adam’s failure and fall.” (EGW, RH, February 24, 1874)

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.

That’s just it. Jesus did not die for sins of ignorance. Jesus died because of a deliberate rebellion against the Royal Law. Did Adam and Eve sin because of ignorance? No. They knew that what they were doing was against the will of God. If they had not known this, then they would not have been guilty of sin (John 9:41). It’s as simple as that. God does not accuse anyone of sin because of honest ignorance. It was the deliberate rebellion against God that required the death of Jesus as atonement.

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.”

Of course! It was the promised sacrifice of Jesus that allowed God to put enmity for sin within the hearts of mankind – all of mankind. And, it is for this reason that everyone with a rational mind has also been given freedom of will. One does not need to have ever read the Bible or hear the story of Jesus in order to have freedom of will – in order to be able to choose right from wrong. One need not be a “born again” Christian to have freedom of will either – contrary to your claims. The heathen individual who chooses to listen to his/her conscience and act in line with the Law of Love will be saved.

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.

You just don’t get it. If the Law is written on your heart, there is no such thing as a “sin of ignorance”. You might make “mistakes of ignorance”, but these mistakes are not the same thing as “sins” if they do not break the Royal Law that was written on the heart. Your mistake is to believe that all mistakes are “sins” that require the blood of Christ. That’s simply not true. As previously discussed, even the angels in heaven make “mistakes of ignorance”, yet are not guilty of sin.

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.

Come on Bill, carefully consider that not all mistakes are in the same category and not all laws are “written on the heart.” The Royal Law is written on the heart and this is the basis of morality and the very definition of “sin”. It would simply and very clearly be unfair and arbitrary for God to define the sin of rebellion against the Law of Love as someone making an honest mistake. That’s just nonsense Bill. It makes God look petty and evil. And, this concept of yours is specifically spoken against by the Bible. Nowhere does God accuse anyone of sin when one honestly didn’t know any better. Such mistakes of ignorance are overlooked by God as being a simple matter of additional education – not requiring the blood of Jesus since the Law of Love was not broken.

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.

This is like arguing that if Jesus has been born in a culture that didn’t know about Sabbath observance that Jesus Himself would have been sinning if He was brought up as a Sunday-keeper. That’s a mistaken view of the Law. Mistakes of ignorance simply are not the same thing as deliberate rebellion, or sin, against the Royal Law of Love.

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.

Again, Jesus specifically and repeatedly said that not knowing means not being guilty of sin. You simply re-word what Jesus actually said so that it fits better with your theology. However, the words that Jesus actually said are quite clear.

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.

Again, you fail to address the numerous statements in the Bible and Ellen White where it says that Jesus Himself was born with “sinful flesh” – yet without sin. As Mrs. White very clearly explains, “He had the same nature as the sinner although He knew no sin, in order that He might be able to condemn sin in the flesh and might be able to sympathize with those who were in the difficulties, dangers, and temptations that beset His own path while He walked with men.” (EGW, Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 176)

How do you get around such clear statements that undermine your own claims? You simply don’t address such statements . . .

Again, we are born with a fallen nature, but that’s not the same thing as sinning – as actually breaking the Law. Such requires an actual action, an actual choice of the free moral agent, before actual sin can spring into existence.

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.

You have a long way to go in your understanding of the nature of God and the nature of true sin and rebellion – the reason why we are here and why Jesus had to die to save us. May God continue to lead you toward the greater light on such things as I do believe that they are important to understand – though not vital to salvation.

Beyond this, however, this really isn’t the topic of this forum and I don’t think I will allow future comments along these lines under future articles. Lots of people try to post comments that are completely off-topic and generally I do not allow it. I’ve been lenient with you because of your past history of generally being on topic in this forum. However, I think you’ve pretty much presented what you have to say a great many times without presenting anything new or substantively addressing the main counterarguments against your position. So, I really see no need to continue to address the very same claims over and over again.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
While serial killers may hear voices and attribute these voices to the voice of God, it is not crazy or schizophrenic or otherwise insane to recognize the voice of God speaking to us. While the voice of the one True God is not usually an audible voice (unlike the voices that often speak quite loudly to the insane, criminal or otherwise), it is still clearly recognizable for those who are in line with the Spirit of God speaking to the heart and mind.

As King David once pointed out, God’s voice can be recognized in nature (Psalms 19:1-3). God’s voice is also present in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) with the Divine Signature especially noticeable in the prophecies of Scripture (2 Peter 1:19) – since only a God can know the future so perfectly (Isaiah 44:8). There is also the undeniable power of conversion from a life hopelessly sunk in sin and self-destructive behavior that, with a prayer for Divine help, has been lifted from the pit and turned into something beautiful and productive. Such a changed life is, perhaps, the greatest illustration of the voice and power of God working with fallen humanity. Of course, it is also hard to deny those moments of inspiration and insight that seem to come out of nowhere at just the right time (Luke 12:11-12). Let’s also not forget answers to prayer that are, in my own experience, simply unexplainable outside of Divine power – a very real form of Divine communication if you ask me.

Of course, as our friend Wesley has artfully described, many of these revelations are only detectable by the mind that is already open to hearing the voice of God – already open to the leading of His Spirit. If the mind is not open to Spiritual things, then Spiritual communications will not be perceived – even if someone is literally raised from the dead before one’s very eyes (Luke 16:31).

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
The problem is that sin makes us so insane that we don’t really know what is “good”. That’s is why God has to specifically remind us not to “kill, steal, murder… etc.” He wouldn’t have to do this if we were actually sane on this planet. But, we’re not…