@Bill Sorensen: First, let me say, Sean, that I appreciate …

Comment on Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe by Sean Pitman.

@Bill Sorensen:

First, let me say, Sean, that I appreciate the dialogue even if we disagree. A few months ago, you would not post any position opposed to your own on this subject.

This particular discussion is really off topic and not the primary purpose of this website. I’m only posting these comments now because there are so many who keep repeating such sentiments in this forum that I felt it should be more directly addressed at some point.

My final point is this, you see no need for grace if we are ignorant of breaking the law. As for Jesus’ words ““If you were blind, you would have no sin…” – John 15:22-25 NIV and John 9:41 NIV

Nothing is stated or written in a vacuum. Here is the simple and obvious meaning of what Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin that could not be forgiven, but now you say we see, therefore, your sin is unpardonable.”

That’s not what the texts actually say. Adam and Eve were not blind. They sinned deliberately against a known command of God. They deliberately took something that they clearly knew didn’t belong to them. This is what made them guilty of sin – of attempting to steal from God.

Yet, even though they did in fact sin deliberately (as we have all done and as all do who sin) grace was still extended to them. They were still offered forgiveness. In fact, the only sin that cannot be forgiven is the sin of refusing to accept forgiveness when it is offered. This is the “unpardonable sin” because God cannot force our acceptance of His forgiveness. There is simply nothing else God can do if we choose not to take Him up on His gracious offer…

When Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin…” – John 15:22-25 NIV and John 9:41 NIV, we can not take this out of the context of the situation. He did not mean they were not guilty of sin if they were blind. He did mean once they were inlightened, and refused to repent, their sin was unpardonable.

Again, you’re adding words and meaning that just isn’t there. Again, your view would have made Adam and Eve guilty of sin for eating the forbidden fruit even if God had failed to tell them that it was actually forbidden. That’s not a fair view of God or of the nature of sin. It makes God seem arbitrary and capricious.

In John 15:22-25 Jesus specifically points out that there is no sin without knowledge. It is only in the deliberate rejection of truth, of what one knows to be true knowledge, that sin is born. It is because of this that Jesus pointed out, “They hated me without reason”.

In other words, sin is a form of insanity. There is no logical reason for it. It is mysterious why anyone would subscribe to it; why anyone would in fact deliberately rebel against what is clearly known to be true and right. This is why sin is called, “the mystery of iniquity” – 2 Thessalonians 2:7. It cannot be explained because there is simply no excuse for sin.

This would only be true in cases where error was deliberate. In cases where error was held in ignorance, there would be a very good excuse for error – i.e., it would not be “mysterious” at all and therefore not “sinful”. Sin, by definition, must be illogical and unexplainable – a great mystery.

Sins of ignorance are pardonable because of grace and God does not hold a believer accountable and sin is not imputed. Not because there is no sin, but because forgiveness covers these sins of a believer.

I’m sorry, but that view simply isn’t biblical. A person is never held responsible for sinning if that person was honestly blind to the error. It is possible for a person to be wrong, to be in error, and not to be sinning at the same time. The concept of sin invokes a component of deliberate rebellion. That is why it is mistaken to judge the morality of a person simply because they are in error. Judging error is much easier than judging motive or morality – than judging if someone is living in “sin” or not.

Sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). But what is the Law? Many people think that the Law is the Ten Commandments. However, the Ten Commandments are nothing more than an expansion of the real underlying Law – the “Royal Law”.

The Royal Law is very simple and intuitively known. All it says is, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (James 2:8) If you keep this Royal Law, you are doing right and are not sinning. This is true even if you don’t understand the reality or importance of the literal 6-day creation week or if you honestly think that Sunday is the true Sabbath. Such honest errors are not a breaking of the Royal Law since the Royal Law is dependent upon motive given what is currently and honestly known or what could have been known but was deliberately refused due to an effort to avoid the truth.

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
In any case, any further comments concerning the morality or lack thereof of those involved with the LSU situation will no longer be posted here on Educate Truth. However, You are free to send me a personal E-mail if you wish (my E-mail can be obtained by visiting my website listed below).


Sean Pitman

Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
@Ron Stone M.D.:

Well, Sean, atheists have written books explaining what, why, and how they have rejected God’s Truth. Those at LSU have explained what they believe and why they have accepted Man’s word and rejected God’s Truth. You say we can never know anything about this, and they must not really “understand” what they are doing.

I don’t know if they do or do not really understand what they are doing; and neither do you. Only God knows for sure…

Not only would I and others here disagree with you, but I believe the atheists would disagree. The idea that church members cannot be “judged” by their words and actions is simply not biblical.

And the soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross would have claimed at the time that they knew exactly what they were doing too… but did they really? Jesus prayed for them saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” – Luke 23:34 NIV

It is quite possible that even if a person is very adamant that he/she knows exactly what he/she is doing, that this person may not really know. This is a possibility that only God knows for sure. You simply cannot make this particular type of moral judgment with complete accuracy. You and I can judge the rightness or wrongness of the word or act (specifically regarding a doctrine like the literal 6-day creation week), but we cannot judge the rightness or wrongness of the heart; the motive.

There is a difference between being mistaken and sinning. Sinning requires a deliberate rebellion against known truth – something that you cannot tell for sure in cases of doctrinal disagreements on such things as the literal creation week or the true origin of the Sabbath or any other such commandment that deals specifically with man’s relationship with his or her God and God alone.

Sean Pitman

Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
@Ron Stone M.D.:

Sean says Moses and the Prophets are “empirical” evidence then says they are not!

Moses and the prophets are only “empirical evidence” in support of the Bible’s credibility if they actually say something true regarding the real world in which we all live (which I think they clearly do).

However, if Moses and the prophets did in fact clearly contradicted the real world (i.e., real history), the hypothesis that the Bible’s credibility is supported by them would be effectively falsified (as is the case for the Book of Mormon, for example) in such a situation.

It is in this sense that things like biblical prophecy must be held up for testing before biblical prophecy can be rationally accepted as credible (at least any more credible than the Book of Mormon).

In other words, biblical credibility is dependent upon the empirical evidence. Without the empirical evidence, there would simply be no greater rational reason to believe the Bible as any more credible than some moral fable that someone simply made up as a “cleverly invented story”. – 2 Peter 1:16 NIV

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!

The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…

The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…

Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.