@Bill Sorensen: So itâ€™s a little scary when you say

Comment on Biblical Interpretation and Credibility by Sean Pitman.

So itâ€™s a little scary when you say if you find evidence by way of science that disagrees with the biblical testimony, you would give up bible Adventism and probably Christanity well.

Your appeal to prophetic evidence is an appeal to empirically-based science Bill – the historical sciences.

It sounds too much like Eve dialoguing with Satan who readily showed her massive evidence that what God said was not true.

Oh please. The Serpent showed Eve a relative pittance of actual evidence compared to what God had already shown Eve. The empirical evidence provided by God to demonstrate His own identity, the fact that He was Eve’s Creator, and the fact that He loved and cared for her, far far surpassed that provided by the Serpent.

The reason why Eve was tempted and fell is not because of a lack of empirical evidence favoring God’s claims, but because the Serpent appealed more to Eve’s vanity than to her intellectual mind. He appealed to her passion for selfish gain and ambition. She fell as we all fall – because of the insanity of wanting what we know, for a fact, is not ours.

He appealed to reason and scientific evidence from nature to prove his point.

Only in the most trivial sense of the word. God is really the one who appealed to reason and evidence in a far more decided and clear-cut manner to support His position… not Satan. Satan only used the tiniest bit of evidence, in comparison, to make what was otherwise an obvious appeal to vanity more palatable to a mind fixated on personal gain. Such a mind loses its ability to think rationally – to follow the true weight of evidence. It will grasp at any tiny straw or fragment of evidence, however unsubstantial in comparison to that which is in known to be in favor of the truth, in order to find any reason at all, however trivial, for continuing in the path of folly.

Such is the power of deliberate self-deception. It is for this reason that sin is, by definition, irrational. If it could be argued that there is any valid excuse for sin, such as a lack of adequate empirical evidence, a given sin would cease to be sin. It is precisely because no valid excuse can actually be presented as a defense for one’s evil actions that sin remains a form of insanity for which there really is no reasonable defense.

This can be recognized in the response of Eve to God’s question, “Why did you eat of the forbidden tree?” Eve followed Adam’s lead in trying to put the blame on God for creating the agent of temptation. Neither Adam nor Eve argued that God had not provided them with enough evidence to know better…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

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

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
To All,

Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of this thread and this website. There are many hot potato issues within the Adventist Church. Other topics that are not directly related to the limited scope of this website will most likely not be posted or will be deleted. You are welcome to carry on such conversations privately via the chat group that is provided by this website.

Thank you.

Educate Truth Staff

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
@Bill Sorensen:

Everything anyone does outside of Christ is sin. Even honest mistakes made by the angels of heaven are â€œforgivenâ€ by virtue of their relationship with Christ.

Yes, it could be called â€œsinâ€ in a comprehensive and generic application. In the bible â€œsinâ€ has many aspects and defined in application in many ways.

Don’t you think that Jesus may have accidentally stepped on someone’s foot, or accidentally bumped into someone, while on this Earth while subject to limited knowledge as we are subject? Did Jesus “sin” when making such honest mistakes?

Your problem is that you define “sin” as any and all mistakes – even an angel accidentally stepping on his friend’s foot would be sinful or evil according to you. And, it seems, as if such “sins” will continue on for eternity in Heaven due to a lack of perfect knowledge.

What then makes the sin of eating the forbidden fruit so different? Adam and Eve were created “in Christ”, just as unfallen angels are. Why then did their sin cause them to be removed from their garden home and place them in the need of the sacrificial suffering and death of Jesus on the cross? Why wouldn’t an angel accidentally stepping on his friend’s foot require the same actions on the part of God?

What you don’t seem to understand is that there are different types of mistakes or “sins” if you want to call them all by the same word. Certain mistakes are not sins against one’s conscience and are therefore not moral wrongs and do not lead to a lost relationship with God – i.e., they do not lead to death.

The difference between accidental mistakes and deliberate sins against one’s neighbor is that accidents are not sins against one’s conscience; against God. Therefore, they do not lead to a loss of one’s relationship with God. Deliberate sins against one’s neighbor, on the other hand, do lead to a loss of relationship with both one’s neighbor and with God.

It is for this reason that sins against one’s conscience are in a whole different class altogether from truly honest accidental mistakes. The conscience is what defines the morality of an individual – what defines true obedience and/or rebellion against God or “sin” – i.e., true iniquity.

You know, at this point I’m not sure if there is anything further I can share with you on this topic that will help you see the difference between honest mistakes and true moral sins? I think you’ve made your position look pretty silly by now. I don’t think very many people are going to find it very difficult to see the difference between accidentally stepping on someone’s foot vs. what Adam and Eve did in eating the forbidden fruit.

For these reasons, comments regarding the supposed moral standing or “sinfulness” of those who hold to opposing doctrinal perspectives from me or you or anyone else contributing to comments in this forum will not be posted. While we disagree with what certain staff members have done and are doing at LSU, and think that these individuals should either resign or be removed from their positions as paid representatives of the Adventist Church within our schools, we do not judge their moral standing before God.

There will be no further discussion along these lines.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
@Bill Sorensen:

Even your angel in heaven illustration will not support the idea that Gabriel is innocent and/or not guilty. It just means forgiveness is a natural result of ignorance. It is a spiritual faux pau. Not unlike a simular incident in this world where you might bump into someone by accident and say, â€œOh, excuse me, I didnâ€™t see you there.â€

Oh, but are such errors sinful? – in the same sense that they would require the blood of Jesus for atonement? Why wouldn’t such errors be classified in the same manner with the sin of eating the forbidden fruit? – which did require the blood of Jesus for atonement?

The issue is pardon, or no pardon. Not, guilty or not guilty. People are pardoned because they are guilty, and we donâ€™t plead innocence before God just because we didnâ€™t know better.

You’re mistaken. People have successfully used the argument of ignorance with God many times. – Gen. 20:3-7 NIV.

Ignorance means that one has not sinned against one’s conscience. A deliberate sin against one’s own conscience, against what one knew to be right, is what demanded the blood of Jesus for atonement.

According to your view, sin will always continue in Heaven for ever and ever. As long as we are subject to imperfect knowledge, accidents will happen – even in Heaven. While we will no doubt apologize for these accidence, they will not be classified as moral “sins”.

Note that Mrs. White and the Bible both point out that moral sin will not arise a second time in God’s universe.