GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
As already mentioned, the Bible never teaches that anyone is guilty and deserves condemnation or death because of the sins or crimes committed by someone else (Ezekiel 18:2-4, 20; Jeremiah 31:29, 30; Romans 2:5, 6; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 10:13; Galatians 6:7, 8; Revelation 20:12, 13; 21:8). This would be a monstrous and unjust portrayal of God since it goes against every sense of justice and fair play.

Beyond this, even Jesus took on the fallen nature of humanity, yet without sin. Therefore, it isn’t the fallen nature that is sinful, but the actual transgressions against the Royal Law that an individual commits that make him/her guilty of sin. Jesus “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men . . . in fashion as a man” (Philippians 2:7, 8), “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3); thus, “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16).

“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)

Christ lived a life of sinlessness in our fallen human nature and thereby condemned sin in the flesh, in our fallen condition with all of our natural fallen propensities and weaknesses. Christ proved that our nature, fallen and corrupted though it may be, is no excuse for sinning and that obedience to God’s law is possible in our fallen condition – thus exposing Satan’s lie and charge against God. It was Satan who declared that no man could keep the law of God after the disobedience of Adam. He claimed that the whole race is under his control and could not escape. Jesus disproved this claim showing how even a man with a fallen nature could, with God’s power, live a sinless life.

Ellen White, stresses this fundamental truth:

“Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity.” – Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7 (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald Publishing Association, 1953-1957, 929).

“In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam’s failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and the moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.” — Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, 117.

“The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity! He would place His feet in Adam’s steps. He would take man’s fallen nature, and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam. He would overcome Satan, and in thus doing He would open the way for the redemption from the disgrace of Adam’s failure and fall, of all those who would believe on Him” (Ellen White, Redemption; or the Temptation of Christ in The Wilderness, 15).

Though He had no taint of sin upon His character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity. By thus taking humanity, He honored humanity. Having taken our fallen nature, He showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision He has made for it, and by becoming partaker of the divine nature. – Ellen White, Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald Office, and the Work in Battle Creek, 13 (May 26, 1896).

Clearly then, the fallen nature of humanity is not in and of itself “sin”. Otherwise, Jesus could not have taken on our fallen nature and still have been guiltless of sin. Likewise, when we are born into this world, we are born with a fallen nature that inevitably leads to sin (i.e., transgression of the Law, the Royal Law in particular), outside of the power of God, but is not sin in and of itself. We are simply not guilty of Adam’s sin simply by being born. We become guilty for our own sins once we deliberately break the Royal Law.

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Being born separated from God isn’t the same thing as “sinning”. Again, sin requires a deliberate choice of a free moral agent to act against that which is known to be right and good. Otherwise, there simply is no sin. Nothing is more clearly spelled out in the Bible than this. Sin is deliberate rebellion against the Royal Law. Of course, being born with a fallen nature certainly leads to sin. However, being born with a fallen nature isn’t sin in and of itself.

In short, we are not born guilty of Adam’s particular sin. We are born with his fallen nature and a propensity to sin. However, the Catholic notion that guilt itself can be inherited is mistaken. Everyone is judged based on his or her own personal decisions as a free moral agent. This concept is spelled out very clearly throughout the Bible (Ezekiel 18:20, 2Kings 14:6, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30).

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
I hope you re-read the Bible with more care regarding all of its statements regarding the creation week and its literal nature. After all, even secular scholars of Hebrew (as already mentioned above) recognize that the author of the Genesis account of creation clearly intended to write a literal historical narrative including the literal nature of the 7-day creation week.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
If the human immune system were the “perfect mechanism” that God originally designed it to be, you’d be right. However, after ~6000 years of sin and decay, the human immune system is no longer what God originally designed it to be – as evidenced by the great many, even among healthy vegan SDAs, who died during the pandemic. Water and light therapies are great and are helpful as layers of protection, but for many, especially those over the age of 65, whey were not enough. The mRNA vaccines were very effective in providing an additional much needed layer of protection during the pandemic. Now, I’ve very glad that you did not get sick enough to require hospitalization and that you avoided long-term injuries and death during the pandemic, but many many others were not so fortunate.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Yeah, I think you’re right…

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership

Hi Sean,

Hope all is well.

I see you wrote a recent article defending the covid vaccine. You seem to be the main protagonist in the church championing the cause of the covid vaccines.

I am on the opposite spectrum

I personally did not touch any of those vaccines, and won’t ever either. I just see to many red flags and it’s alarming to me. Could you possibly explain to me what Revelation 18:23 speaks about please? I would love to hear your take on that verse.

Justin S

Hi Justin,

Thank you for your note. I do appreciate your concerns and your convictions. It can be very confusing to sort out so many different voices saying so many different things regarding what to think and what do to keep oneself as healthy as possible.

Regarding Revelation 18:23, in particular, the term “pharmakeia” is best translated as “sorcery” here. There is no intended advice at all against modern medicine in this passage. After all, would it be wise to suggest that medications like antibiotics to treat bacterial infections or insulin to treat diabetes are evil “sorceries”? Again, such arguments only make the Christians who say such things look sensational and irrational – which puts the Gospel Message itself into a bad light for those who are considering following Christ.

COVID-19 and Vaccines – Update

Consider also that Ellen White herself promoted various medications and medical therapies of her day that she considered to be helpful in various situations? – to include the use of what was generally regarded as a “poison”, quinine, to prevent malarial infections for missionaries who worked in malaria-infested regions of the world? She wrote, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine.” (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine) She also supported the vaccination of her son William, both as a child and as an adult (despite William having had an adverse reaction to vaccination as a child) (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine). She supported blood transfusion when necessary, despite their risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=303). And, she even supported using radiation therapy when appropriate, despite its risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=303). Beyond this, she recognized the advantages of anesthesia during surgery and the use of medicines to relieve the intense pain and suffering of the injured or sick (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=286&QUERY=before+major+surgery&resultId=1&isLastResult=1).

I hope this helps you at least understand why I take the position that I take. I mean, I’m a pathologist with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology and have studied COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines in great detail. Beyond this, I’ve seen the results myself, with my own eyes – and so has my brother-in-law, pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult who runs a large ICU in S. Cal. We’ve seen ICUs overflowing, beyond max capacity, with the very sick and the dying during the height of the pandemic – the vast majority of whom were unvaccinated. Roger’s face and hands are the last things that many saw and felt on this Earth. It was very personal for us. We were actually direct eyewitnesses. And, we’re not alone. This very same situation was happening all around the world during the pandemic. Truly, the mRNA vaccines saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Regarding Mandates:

“While the available data in 2021 and early 2022 suggested that being vaccinated conferred tremendous personal benefit to the recipient, such that it was unclear if there could be added gain for demanding others be vaccinated too for added protection. By mid-2022, vaccines did offer modest reduction in transmission, but personal health benefits against severe disease were largely retained. Yet, by the fall of 2022, with the emergence of the Omicron variant, a new verdict had emerged. Vaccines were unable to halt transmission in the presence of escape variants; thus, here too, mandates failed to meet the ethical pre-requisite of benefit to others, as a vaccinated person could still spread the virus. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed comparable rates of viral shedding comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people with COVID-19 (Boucau et al. 2022).” (Vinay Prasad, 2024) 

I was never personally a fan of the vaccine mandates put out by the US government (or other governments around the world) since they seemed to me to be largely counterproductive and provide little benefit regarding limiting the spread of the virus after the Omicron variant came out. As Dr. Prasad points out here (Link), the mRNA vaccines were so good as far as personal protection was concerned, that limiting the spread of COVID-19, once the vaccines became available, was kind of a moot point.

That being said, once the government mandates were in place, I also didn’t see it as appropriate to claim religious liberty as a reason for refusing to get vaccinated – since there is nothing in the Bible that would prevent one from obeying a government mandate along these lines (Link). People often cite the case of Daniel and his three friends refusing the king’s meat as a Biblical basis for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The problem here is that the vaccines themselves were not unhealthy or unreasonable during a pandemic and their use was not recognized as a form of idol worship. Also, Daniel’s proposed 10-day test would not have had the same results with respect to the mRNA vaccines, but would have shown benefits for the significant majority of people.

As Ellen White put it:

“In cases where we are brought before the courts, we are to give up our rights, unless it brings us in collision with God. It is not our rights we are pleading for, but God’s right to our service.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases 5:69 – 1895)

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Wow! I had no idea.

However, this does seem to be inconsistent with the following on Canadian Law regarding Religious Liberty (from the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms):

Sincerity of belief is a question of fact. To establish sincerity, an individual must show that they sincerely believe that a certain belief or practice is required by their religion. The religious belief must be asserted in good faith and must not be fictitious, capricious or an artifice. In assessing the sincerity of the belief, a court will take into account, inter alia, the credibility of the testimony of the person asserting the particular belief and the consistency of the belief with that person’s other current religious practices (Multani, supra at paragraph 35; Amselem, supra at paragraphs 52-53). It is the sincerity of the belief at the time of the interference, not its strength or absolute consistency over time, that is relevant at this stage of the analysis (R. v. N.S., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726 at paragraph 13).

The Court does not want to engage in theological debates when examining the practice or belief in question. The practice or belief in question need not be required by official religious dogma nor need it be in conformity with the position of religious officials. Freedom of religion extends beyond obligatory doctrine to voluntary expressions of faith and is not restricted to major and recognizable religions (Amselem, supra at paragraphs 46-50, 53, and 56). A protected religious practice need not be part of an established belief system or even a belief shared by others. An individual need only demonstrate a sincere belief that the practice is of religious significance to the individual (Little v. R., 2009 NBCA 53, leave to appeal dismissed, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 417 at paragraph 7). It is not appropriate to adduce expert evidence showing sincerity or lack thereof (Amselem, supra at paragraph 54).

https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html

So, given the above, are there any examples were someone actually was able to present so-called “objective” evidence in the form of a “tenet of religious faith”, which actually achieved success? where such an individual would not have been fired? I mean, let’s just say, for argument sake, that the Catholic Church had a fundamental tenet of faith which opposed vaccinations. Would this really have made a difference in Alberta for members of the Catholic Church? Would these people have been allowed to keep their jobs while all other vaccine objectors lost theirs? – despite the statements above suggesting that personal religious belief and liberties are not dependent upon that of an established belief system?

It’s not that I’m opposed to mandated civil laws in an effort to maintain public safety/health. For example, various kinds of jobs require one to be follow various personal health regulations – like working in the hospital or performing surgeries while masking and wearing sterile gloves and taking various vaccinations. There are also quarantine laws that are quite reasonable in various situations/settings. That being said, great efforts should be made to support personal religious/moral convictions as long as such support does not significantly interfere with the liberty and/or safety of others.

Any suggestions on any potential improvement of the wording of the SDA position on vaccines or other modern medical therapies and/or religious liberty statements?