;-) It seems like there are much bigger issues …

Comment on GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation by Sean Pitman.

😉

It seems like there are much bigger issues in play regarding these last days. However, the nature of sin and how God deals with it is a surprisingly important concept that paints a picture of what we think of the very nature of God. Some people think that God views any error of any kind as a form of “sin”. If so, even the angels, who aren’t omniscient and therefore are bound to make honest mistakes from time to time, are “sinners”. This is a sad view of sin because it paints God in an unfair and unjust light. Of course, this entire “Great Controversy” struggle is over this very concept – the character of God. Is God lovable or not? Can He really be trusted? Is He someone to be feared rather than loved?

It is for this reason that I personally consider it of significant importance to understand the nature of sin and how God deals with it. And, as far as I understand the nature of sin from my study of the Bible and the writings of Ellen White, it seems to me that there is a very clear and helpful distinction between errors that are due to a lack of knowledge (which anyone but God Himself would be subject to – even heavenly angels) vs. errors that are due to a deliberate rebellion against what is clearly known to be right and good. These types of deliberate errors, I believe, are what the Bible defines as “sin” in the sense of an error due to an underlying moral failure or deficiency. Such an error, or “sin”, is what caused the downfall of humanity in the Garden of Eden. And, the very same errors have taken each one of us captive so that no one on this planet can claim to be without a history of such errors or deliberate sins. We’ve all fallen short of the kingdom of God, not accidentally, but quite deliberately – so that none of us has a valid excuse of any kind, not even one of honest ignorance, before God for the bad things that we’ve all done in our lives.

That means, of course, that there is only one hope for us – the lavish mercy of God extended to us through the life and death of Jesus on our behalf. Basically, it is our extremely desperate need and hopeless state alone that recommends wretches like us to God. We have absolutely nothing within ourselves or our past history that can make us look any better before God than filthy rags. And, it is only in our humble recognition of our true state before God that we can find hope. Because, it is only when we come to this realization that we feel our extreme need to take on the righteous life of Jesus and cover ourselves with His robes and His strength, falling to our knees in gratitude for such a gift to those of us who don’t remotely deserve it.

So, it is not that we are born to make ignorant mistakes that’s the real problem here. It is that we are born in such a state where we end up in deliberately rebelling against what we do know is right and good that’s the real problem. It’s a form of insanity – or there would be an excuse for the bad things that we’ve all deliberately done. There simply is no excuse for it. And, the only way out of our insanity is through the grace of God made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus. Without this saving sacrificial grace, we are all destined to become more and more insane and more and more despicable, even in our own eyes. That is why the lost, at the end of time, will actually prefer death to the torture of eternal life – and they will therefore view their own pending death as a act of mercy on the part of God.

And, for me, that’s what it’s all about… recognizing the goodness and selfless love of God in His dealing with the sin problem and being given the privilege to choose life and a sound mind over personal insanity and death.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

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.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.