Comment on Biblical Interpretation and Credibility by Bill Sorensen.
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
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…]
-sdp
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.
