Sean said….. “The reason why Eve was tempted and fell is …

Comment on Biblical Interpretation and Credibility by Bill Sorensen.

Sean said…..

“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.”

Well, Sean, this is speculation on your part. Eve had no sinful nature to appeal to. The devil created a scenario that included a “God ego” for anyone who would accept his proposition. And as you pointed out, this is a kind of spiritual insanity.

But to me, it seems apparent that his main focus was on the rational aspects of the human mind. He, himself, ate of the fruit and suggested such “evidence” was proof that she had misunderstood what God had meant.

Satan would not call God a liar. That is far to crass to deceive many people.

But he would suggest that we did not understand or interpret correctly what God had said or meant. And this is in harmony with the modern attack on creation even by some SDA’s.

Eve had no inherent desire to dis-believe God like we do. She had to be persuaded by some reasoning that appealed to her intellect. And I don’t deny that Satan also used flattery, but it was primarily an appeal to her reasoning powers.

And if he could create doubt concerning what God meant, he could substitute his own agenda and explanation on what God had said.

So he said, “Ye shall not surely (really) die.” “You will just move on to a higher state of existence with a higher degree of understanding.”

And in the end, we know what happened. He transferred Adam and Eve’s faith from God to himself. Now they have a sinful nature. (The sinful nature is spiritual, not physical.)

In other words, what you would do naturally if you believe God, or what you would do naturally if you believe Satan.

The purpose of salvation is to persuade people to transfer their faith from Satan back to God. And we are born, sinful by nature. God has to do the persuading. And the cross of calvary is His ultimate argument.

The sinful nature is not the physical being of man. Even though our physical being is an avenue Satan can use to hold us in subjection to himself. Our physical needs are presented to us as more important than trusting in God to take care of us in any and all circumstances.

Now I have given you a lesson on “original sin”. The original sin was the transfer of faith to Satan.

Back to our original discussion. As Protestants, we confess “the bible is our only rule of faith and practice.”

No scientific evidence transcends this confession of faith. And I think you agree with this as well, Sean.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
Kent said……

“If you really want to go for something dramatic, Bill, why not invest in Great Controversy billboards all across the continent that proclaims the Pope to be anti-Christ. Make it a dramatic, apocolyptic scene. Put a phone number on it where people can order their copy. And be sure to put Seventh-day Adventist on it so that we can get lots of people so angry at us that we no longer have an opportunity to witness when people ask us, one on one, what SDAs believe.”

Actually, Professor Kent, about every two years my wife and I mail out first Steps to Christ and then “On the Edge Time” sponsored by the Steps to Christ project to all our neighbors.

I obviously don’t know the full and final effect of our efforts.

I do know that one young mother asked for more information and I visited her. Today she is a member of a Spanish SDA church here in the local area.

So, out of hundreds of mail outs, I know of at least one who had a real interest to know and find the truth.

Do you think it was worth it?

Bill Sorensen

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
Well, Professor Kent, I don’t know if billboards would be good, bad, or indifferent. No one knows exactly how someone else should witness. We could give some advice and make suggestions. But our wisdom may well be as faulty as theirs.

I do know it seems like more and more as SDA’s we are far more interested in patronizing our neighbors and avoid confrontation at all cost.

As we read the bible, we see that historically, truth goes more by confrontation than infiltration. Or, as one little ditty puts it…..

“He who has a thing to sell,
and goes and whispers in the well,
Is not so apt to get the dollars,
As he who climbs a tree and hollars.”

Our message is characterized by an angel crying with a “loud voice”. I don’t know how to interpret this except to assume that our final message goes by confrontation.

Not a popular idea around the SDA church of today. And of course, this does not mean we deliberately go about trying to see how many people we can offend and stir up against us.

I think as a general rule, we are far more interested in being accepted and popular in the world than have the approval and approbation of God. Actually, we hope we can have both, but this is simply impossible. “For the friendship of the world is enmity against God.”

And by the way, I am speaking from my own natural human nature as I can readily discern my own desire to be less confrontational and accepted. After all, we all like to be liked. Don’t we?

In many cases, we gear our evangelism accordingly.

Bill Sorensen

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
Professor Kent, are you a SDA? I’ve seen you “amen” the Catholic priest on Spectrum. And now you doubt the validity of spreading the GC by way of the mail.

As for how we consider our moral obligation in the context of giving, we must consider the condition of the church in EGW’s day and our own.

The church was in a positive growth stage in both doctrine and membership. Any loyal SDA could see the wisdom of supporting the denomination as a whole. And I don’t suggest even today that anyone lightly choose to do otherwise.

If EGW was alive today, she no doubt would have a totally different view of the spirituality of the church. If it was in a growing stage of development in her day, it certainly is not today.

We “worship, we know not what” in more than a few declarations of faith in what the church supports and how it defines our message and mission.

Thus, we have more than a few independent ministries who are aware of this reality and thus have their own ideas of how we can “finish the work”. They disagree on several issues the church supports.

I have no objection to someone who feels comfortable in paying their tithe to the organized denomination. Especially if they have carefully considered all their options and choose to do what they do.

Neither would I condemn anyone who felt otherwise if they have also carefully considered all the implications of their decision. We also know the EGW took tithe money and used it without feeling the need to send it through regular channels.

And you asked Holly concerning the Spectrum ministry…..”My question for you: what specific prophecy has the discussion at Spectrum fulfilled?”

If you don’t recognize the Spectrum ministry as a blatant anti-SDA ministry I could only wonder what you think the SDA ministry and mission should be?

Surely you are aware if you have read very much of the EGW materials that she stated the worst enemies of truth would be apostate SDA’s. And if Spectrum does not fulfill that prophecy, I don’t know who will.

So, again I wonder if you are really a SDA or not? May I ask, “Is your loyalty to the church a Roman Catholic type loyalty that blindly follows given orders and teachings by the leadership without a careful evaluation based on the bible?”

“Is this the sole reason you challenge Sean in his views of how to defend creation?”

Some have wondered what you do believe, Prof. Kent? I know I have at times. And when you think a mail out of the GC is a waste of time and money, I tend to doubt your “loyalty” to the historic SDA message.

Perhaps you think there is a better way. And maybe there is. If so, then get on with it and tell us what you do that is more productive than a mail out.

For myself, if one in one thousand actually looked the book over and even read a portion of it, I would consider it a great success. Even if 999 were thrown in the trash and never looked at.

Personally, I don’t care much for the Madison Avenue approach of modern advertising that our church uses for evangelism. Even some of the independent ministries go to far in this direction in my opinion. But they are least trying to hold up the biblical standards we all should be supporting.

Hope everyone has a great week.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Recent Comments by Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” That’s what I’ve been saying (and what Morris Venden and MacCarty have been saying)”

Well, I did not do a complete search on all the MacCarty says or believes. But in the case of Venden, I did do such a study and Venden had a doctrine of “sanctification by faith alone” that was totally outside the bible teaching.

“Faith alone” by definition means we play no part in it. If so, it is not “faith alone”. But Venden’s view of sanctification was definitely “faith alone” and we play no part in it but believe. At any rate, there is more confusion than bible definition in his definition of sanctification, and I think this applies to MacCarty as well. Like I said, I read his book a couple years ago and it was circular with no real definition of what he meant.

But basically, he equated the old covenant with legalism which is bogus. We agree a misapplication of the old covenant is not the same thing as a clear understanding of the old covenant and its purpose. So let’s not take a misapplication of the old covenant, and then claim this is the old covenant.

As you have defended the Sabbath against a misapplication of the new covenant and not called it the new covenant we must do the same with the old covenant. Our conclusion should be that a misapplication of any truth does not equate to the truth that is being misapplied. The confusion continues on many levels in the SDA community today.

Your defense of creation against the liberal agenda is a classic illustration of how the liberal agenda misapplies the new covenant on every level from false teaching to simply denying the bible outright. And all this from a misapplication of the new covenant that creates a false “spirit ethic” that takes the place of the bible and the ten commandments.

I appreciate the dialogue. Some may see the point eventually and some never will. Since we don’t know who’s who in this context, we leave it up to God to sort out the various issues and determine who “gets it” and who don’t.
Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

I never said any such thing or even suggested it. Did you even read what I wrote. If so, you decided to impute to me something I never said or suggested. Let’s at least try to be objective in our evaluation of what the other person said.

I said the Holy Spirit liberates the will and by the power of the Holy Spirit, we can choose to believe, repent and obey. How then is this your false claim that I think “You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

You rightly point out that without the Holy Spirit, we have no way to know God’s will, let alone do it. And yes, Jesus “puts enmity between sinful beings and the kingdom of Satan.”

But “putting the enmity by Christ” will save no one until and unless they choose to respond in the God ordained way He has stated in the bible. Each individual must choose to first accept the atonement, then repent, and then obey the law. Thus, the Holy Spirit empowers the will, but it is the sinner who must respond. And this is not “doing it on their own” as you seem to imply. Jesus said, “Without me, you can do nothing.” But as Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ which stengthenth me.”

Paul states what he can do by the power of God. And it is not God doing the believing, or repenting or obeying. It is Paul. EGW makes this very clear to refute the mystics who try to claim that Jesus or the Holy Spirit gets in them and does the willing and doing.

” While these youth were working out their own salvation, God was working in them to will and to do of his good pleasure. Here are revealed the conditions of success. To make God’s grace our own, we must act our part. The Lord does not propose to perform for us either the willing or the doing. His grace is given to work in us to will and to do, but never as a substitute for our effort. Our souls are to be aroused to co-operate. The Holy Spirit works in us, that we may work out our own salvation. This is the practical lesson the Holy Spirit is striving to teach us. “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR
August 20, 1903
Lessons From the Life of Daniel—9
This concerning Daniel and his friends.

She refutes the modern day mysticism that would destroy the will of man and interpret “Christ in you, the hope of glory” totally outside the biblical context.

But “Christ in you, the hope of glory” is the same thing reflected in the words of Paul, “For me to live is Christ.” Meaning, I love Jesus so much my whole life is dedicated to His glory and will.

Our “own works” that she refers to, are those people do outside a biblical relationship with Christ. It does not refer to the works of a true believer who conforms his life to emulate the life of Christ. Where does Skip MacCarty point out this difference?

Much, if not most of modern spirituality in Adventism is pure mysticism that convolutes the identity of Christ and the believer to the point the believer has no identity. It was highly stimulated by Morris Venden who tried to show that “faith alone” applies equally to sanctification as it does to justification. It was and is totally bogus. But it has infiltrated the church by him and others to the point that mysticism is rapidly becoming the major spirituality of the church.

You may mean well, Sean. But like so many others, you don’t take the time to carefully consider the implications of what you say nor explain it is a clear definitive way so that it fits the bible context. If the true bible position on sanctification is clearly presented, then it is obvious we “save ourselves” by the way we respond to the word of God. In which case, the law is salvational, but only in the biblical context. Simply put, we are “saved” by doing what God says and this includes faith in the atonement.

Many are so “hell bent” to avoid what they think is legalism, they wrest the scriptures to their own destruction and not only deceive themselves, but others who do not carefully consider the implications of the conclusion of their false idea and theory.

But to claim that those who reject your view think they can “do it on their own” is a false representation that prejudices others who don’t carefully follow the conversation. Having said all this, I am more than willing for anyone to explain and qualify and re-qualify as many times as necessary to make it very clear what they mean by what they say.

So I agree, sanctification is by faith, but not by “faith alone” in the same context that justification is by faith alone. Without a clear explanation, all we have is ongoing confusion on sin and salvation and the divine factor vs. the human factor in a full and complete view of what the bible teaches about the issues.
Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“We “work out our own salvation” by simply opening to the door the Spirit of God. That’s our only “work” to do here. That’s the only “work” we can do. The rest is beyond human power.”

Your whole theory is pure mysticism as the rest of your explanation affirms. The purpose of sanctification on the part of God is to liberate the human will for self government. It is the believing sinner who chooses to have faith and repent, and obey the law of God.

Neither is it “automatic” but by careful evaluation of the will of God and the implications of the outcome if we chose not to accept the free offer. You undermine and in the end, destroy the human factor in salvation and the moral accountability of man.

So when we are confronted by the gospel, we must choose to believe, choose to repent and choose to obey. God will not do this for us. Neither will the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the “holy motive” as He inspires and empowers us to “save ourselves” by responding to the word of God exactly as it is stated in the bible.

Much of the SDA church has opted for some mystical non-biblical explanation of the plan of salvation that has no affinity to the true teaching of the bible.

So sanctification is not “just give yourself to Jesus and He will do the rest.”

Basically, you convolute the divine factor and human factor in such a way that you end up negating the human factor altogether.

I doubt anything I would share with you would challenge your thinking, since in the past you have rejected other clear biblical concepts on sin and salvation like the doctrine of original sin. At any rate, if you post my response, perhaps one of your readers will actually see the point and consider the implications of our dialogue.
Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Yes, as EGW and the bible affirm, we are justified by obedience to the moral law. Not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. And this is what the Investigative judgment is all about. The word “justification” in the bible has a more comprehensive meaning than people perceive today. Like the word “atonement” and “salvation” the word “justification” has been limited to a non-biblical meaning and application that foreign to the bible and the full meaning the bible gives to these words.

And yes, we save ourselves by the way we respond to the word of God. No, we don’t save ourselves by meriting heaven and earning the favor of God. “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” Jesus

This is too plain to be misunderstood except by those who convolute the bible to support their false doctrine. No one is justified by “faith alone” except the special context used by the Reformation to oppose Rome when Rome taught legal merit in the believer’s response to the conditions for salvation.

“Faith alone” in this context was “Christ alone” who stands in the presence of God in our behalf as the meritorious cause of salvation and eternal life. This is not sanctification nor is sanctification “by faith alone” as some faulty teachers try to present and defend. Sanctification is always by faith and works on the part of the believer as we “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.”

And justification by faith in the bible, is the believer’s faith in Christ, not Christ’s faith in the believer. This subject is so confused and warped by SDA scholars it has no affinity to bible teaching and doctrine. So it is the believer’s faith in Christ that justifies. This is the whole theme of Paul and the new testament emphasis and message.
Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” “All that the Lord has said, we will do.” (Exodus 19:8).”

That’s right Sean. And the Lord said, “The people have well spoken there commitment.” But then added, “Oh that there was such an heart in them to do it.”

The issue was proper motivation based on a clear understanding of sin and all that this implies. God never chided them for their statement of faith but their lack of understanding the sinful human heart.

How is that any different than today in the new covenant era? How many are baptized making the same valid commitment and confession of faith only to find the difficulty of living out the Christian experience.

Neither will Jesus get into anybody and obey the law for them. The motivation will ratchet up as our understanding is increased and the love of God that motivates works in a more dynamic way with the increased knowledge.

But many assume the old covenant was a system of legalism and then contrast the new covenant as a true system of faith. This is bogus. True believers in the old covenant era trusted in Christ. These are the old covenant experience people and not Cain or anyone else in that era who either refused the offer God provided or convoluted it. So those who imply that the old covenant was in and of itself a system of legalism like MacCarty does, have a false idea of old and new covenant that is simply not biblical. And then they try to explain how in the new covenant God writes the law on our heart and not in stone.

God wrote His law on the heart of Abel, Noah, Abraham and every true believer in the old covenant era as Jesus “put enmity between Satan and man” by a revelation of the love of God in His willingness to make atonement for fallen man. The new covenant era simply means God will finish writing His law on the heart of every true believer and this is not some “new” covenant different than the old.

Only in the sense that the atonement promised in the past is now a reality in the present. And this ratchets up the motivation in harmony with the life of Jesus more fully revealed by way of the new covenant writers. It is false doctrine to present the idea that no one had the law “written on their heart” during the old covenant era. Did you ever read the words of David in the Psalms, “Create in me a new heart, and renew a right spirit within me.”?

This is not the new covenant in the old covenant era. There is no “new covenant believer” in the old covenant era. This is impossible. The new covenant is after the fact of the atonement and is based on the time element of the two covenants. The first covenant (old covenant) is based on a future event. The new covenant is based on a past event. This is the whole spirituality of Paul and repeated and affirmed in the book of Hebrews. What God had promised during the old covenant era, He has done.

There is certainly an affinity in both covenants as both are based on Jesus and His sacrifice. Everyone in heaven will have trusted in the atonement of the cross whether it was before Jesus made the atonement or after He made the atonement. Again, I say it is bogus to claim Cain represents an old covenant experience and Abel a new covenant experience. And it is equally false to claim anyone who is a legalist in the new covenant era is an old covenant experience. Namely this, the old covenant is not legalism and never was. Just because people corrupt the old covenant does not equate to claiming they were legalists by virtue of being in the old covenant era.

This is MacCarty’s error and he speaks for more than a few SDA scholars who are as confused as he is. God made no legal covenant with anyone with the exception of His Son. God’s covenant with all is based on the moral law and this is not legalism unless, like the Catholic church, you think you can merit heaven by keeping the moral law.

The moral law, like I said, is a family law and those who refuse to enter into this moral covenant to “obey and live” will never be in heaven. Children in a loving home don’t obey their parents to merit and earn the favor of their parents or earn a place in the family. None the less, they are in covenant relationship with their parents and if they rebel enough, can be disinherited, just like Adam and Eve who rebelled against the family law.

Adam and Eve in a state of sinlessness were not meriting the favor of God. Nor do the sinless angels merit the favor of God. Nor do the redeemed in heaven merit the favor of God. None the less, all are under obligation to obey the family law of God or forfeit eternal life like Adam and Eve in the garden. Love for God never releases anyone from the moral obligation to do God’s will and submit to His authority. This issue is so intense even in the SDA church that many now assume if you love God you have no obligation to obey and that you simply do God’s will because “you want to, not because you have to.” This is bogus and the lie of Satan that he advocated in heaven. We better get it straight and if not, “Spiritualism is at the door deluding the whole world.”
Bill Sorensen