Let’s say, Sean, someone keeps Sunday holy instead of the …

Comment on Biblical Interpretation and Credibility by Bill Sorensen.

Let’s say, Sean, someone keeps Sunday holy instead of the bible Sabbath, but they don’t know about the bible Sabbath. Are they sinning?

Did you read what EGW said about this issue in Early Writings? and finally, do you believe her?

“As the ministration of Jesus closed in the holy place, and He passed into the holiest, and stood before the ark containing the law of God, He sent another mighty angel with a third message to the world. A parchment was placed in the angel’s hand, and as he descended to the earth in power and majesty, he proclaimed a fearful warning, with the most terrible threatening ever borne to man. This message was designed to put the children of God upon their guard, by showing them the hour of temptation and anguish that was before them. Said the angel, “They will be brought into close combat with the beast and his image. Their only hope of eternal life is to remain steadfast. Although their lives are at stake, they must hold fast the truth.” The third angel closes his message thus: “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” As he repeated these words, he pointed to the heavenly sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. It includes all who died trusting in Christ, but who, not having received the light upon God’s commandments, had sinned ignorantly in transgressing its precepts.” {EW 254.1}

Notice especially……”It includes all who died trusting in Christ, but who, not having received the light upon God’s commandments, had sinned ignorantly in transgressing its precepts.”

People are not condemned in this context, not because they are innocent or not guilty, no, it is because they are forgiven and pardoned.

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, “Oh, excuse me, I didn’t see you there.”

If they are gracious, they will simply say, “Hey, no problem, I see your attention was diverted elsewhere.”

Now if they say, “You should have seen me coming and gotten out of my way and I have no need to ask pardon, I am not guilty of any infraction even on a social level. I didn’t see you there, it was your fault.”

How would anyone who was object of the offense respond? The offender would be saying “I am too important to be concerned with your person or any rights you have to be in this world.”

Certainly knowledge has a bearing on the situation and in the case of an offense against God and His law, pardon will not be a factor if and when ignorance is no longer a factor.

The issue is pardon, or no pardon. Not, guilty or not guilty. People are pardoned because they are guilty, and we don’t plead innocence before God just because we didn’t know better.

The scriptural teaching on sin and forgiveness is not obscure in its various applications. From wilfull rebellion to sins of ignorance they are all discussed and explained in the bible.

At no time does the bible explain sins of ignorance as having no need of pardon. And the very implication of pardon is coupled with the reality of guilt.

A judge never declares someone pardoned who is falsely accused of a crime. He declares the person innocent. Pardon is always guilt and forgiveness.

I hope we all have a happy and blessed Sabbath. We have much to be thankful for and in some cases, we don’t even know all the times God has acted in our behalf to bless us and keep us in the faith.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
Sean Pitman wrote:

“I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well…” [http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/]

Did you say this or not, Sean?

Bill Sorensen

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
Sean said…..

“The lost are not lost because they don’t have adequate evidence.”

Sean, listen, I did not say they did not have adequate evidence.

I did say, “They claim they do not have adequate evidence.”

And I am not talking about what they finally admit in the end. I am talking about their attitude during their probationary time.

Have you ever read any of John Alfke’s comments on Spectrum? The man is a classic defender of sin.

His whole argument is the bible is irrational and can not be understood. Who then is he blaming for his unbelief and sin? God, of course.

He is simply an example in the raw of all of those who justify sin and blame God.

I only use John because he is so obvious an illustration of the point I have made. I doubt he is worse than many others who are not so clear in what they say and what it finally means. As in the case of Elaine Nelson.

Whether any of those people are saved in the end, I can’t say. But I can “judge” their theology and arguments against God and the bible. It is all the same, isn’t it? Some just more subtle than others.

God speaks through His instrumentalities and Satan speaks through his. If people don’t think this controversy is intense, they don’t read their bible much, do they?

Bill Sorensen

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
Sean said…..

“”Personally, if I ever became convinced that there really is no scientific merit behind the literal seven-day creation week or the worldwide nature of Noah’s flood, or if Darwinian-style evolution one day made good sense to me, I would leave behind not only the SDA Church but Christianity as well.”

The crux of this statement is the fact we have no proof or even evidence that God is who He says He is unless we appeal to prophecy.

Even if you subscribe to ID, and are convinced it is the most rational explanation, you still don’t know who the intelligent being is who did the creating.

Science can not and will not even give you a clue. So how can we identify this “creator”? The God of the bible self affirms and declares His acts and authority and then predicts the future as evidence of His self affirmation.

So, first and foremost, we must identify God since there are “gods many, and lords many.”

So, to affirm ID and not know who it is in the final analysis, worthless. And science would never acknowledge or agree to some miracle power that does not fit the scientific model. Such miracles throw science out the window.

No one can “raise the dead”. or create by the “word of His power.” Science will never harmonize with this biblical affirmation.

Science is a “means of grace” only after the fact. It can tell you what was created but not who did it.

Bill Sorensen

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.