As already mentioned, the Bible never teaches that anyone is …

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

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.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

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.


GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation

However, What if the entire story is just that, a story . . .a highly stylistic poetic story not intended to be taken literally in the first place?

This is not a reasonable suggestion – not even among secular scholars of Hebrew. The vast majority of world-class Hebrew scholars believe that the author of Genesis intended to convey a literal historical account of creation. Those who argue otherwise, like you, are simply imposing their own personal ideas onto Scripture – contrary to its intended meaning.

Take, for example, the comments of well-known Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr:

“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

Consider that Prof. Barr made this statement while personally considering the Genesis narrative to be false. He did not believe that God created life on this planet in just six literal days. He believed that life existed and evolved on this planet over billions of years just like most mainstream scientists do today. Yet, he still was quite clear that the author(s) of the Genesis narrative intended to say something about real historical events. They did not intend to be figurative in their language.

Now, it is quite a different thing to say that the Biblical authors where simply mistaken compared to the argument that suggests that they were intending to write symbolically or figuratively. The SDA Church takes the Bible at its word, as the revealed Word of God. So, in suggesting that the SDA Church not put so much stock in a literal reading of the Genesis narrative (despite the clear intent of the authors to write a literal historical account of creation), you are suggesting that the Church back off of its position that the Bible was in fact inspired by God to give us privileged information about God and about the world in which we live. If the SDA Church were to do this, it would basically undermine the entire purpose for their being a unique Seventh-day Adventist Church. After all, if one can pick and choose what is and what is not correct in the Bible, what’s the point?

In short, your arguments are based on your own pre-conceived ideas of reality – not on what the Biblical authors intended to tell us about historical reality and their claims to have received this privileged information directly from God Himself.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
The hospitalization/death rate is far less for the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated (Link).

As far as natural immunity gain via a prior COVID-19 infection, it can actually be superior to the immunity gained via full vaccination. However, natural immunity is less predictable. Up to a third of people who were previously infected by COVID-19 don’t develop antibodies against it (Link). However, if one can demonstrate an adequate level of antibodies against COVID-19 it seems reasonable to me that such people should be considered to have adequate immunity.

As far as the immunity generated by vaccination, the type of immunity generated would not be so effective at preventing a mucosal nasopharyngeal infection since the types of antibodies produced (IgG and IgM) would preferentially be blood-based rather than tissue-based (IgA) type of immunity (Link). Because of this, naturally derived immunity might have an additional advantage in this regard as well.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been studied via large RCTs with regard to early treatment and haven’t shown any detectable benefit. The meta-analysis studies were based on numerous low-quality and even a few fraudulent studies that really don’t show good support for any real benefit in light of the larger RCTs.

As far as using vitamins, like vitamin D for instance, you have to have already built up a useful level of vitamin D over the long-term before getting infected by COVID-19 in order to show an advantage. Sure, those with high-normal vitamin D levels do have a survival advantage over those who are vitamin D deficient, given vitamin D in the acute setting after a person is already sick has minimal benefits.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
When it comes to severe COVID-19, hospitalizations, and death, booster shots appear to be helpful for those who are over the age of 65 (Link). However, when it comes to those younger than the age of 50, the benefits are not so clear. It seems that for younger people the boosters reduce nasopharyngeal infections, but protection against hospitalizations/death for those who are vaccinated remains high since immune memory (i.e., memory B-cells) remains strong for those who were vaccinated many months ago.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine against COVID is now being marketed under the name “Comirnaty” following FDA approval (Link). This isn’t a different vaccine. It’s the very same vaccine.

“The FDA-approved Pfizer-BioNTech product Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under EUA have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. Therefore, providers can use doses distributed under EUA to administer the vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine. For purposes of administration, doses distributed under the EUA are interchangeable with the licensed doses.”

As far as liability is concerned, again, liability has been taken over by the government so that the vaccines can be made avaiable to everyone. Otherwise, only the rich would be able to afford vaccines.

Sure, this is the first time that mRNA technology has been used to produce a vaccine for the general public. However, it is not the first time that the mRNA technology itself has been successfully used.

Patisiran is based on the very same mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It uses lipid nanoparticles to deliver specially coded mRNA into human cells to produce the desire protein sequences to treat disease. About 1,000 people have been using Pitisiran since 2017. Now, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 use two injects of 30μg (Pfizer) to 100μg (Moderna) of mRNA for each injection. In comparison, Patisiran uses around 100x this dose of mRNA, which gets injected intravenously every three months . . . indefinitely since 2017. And, this was done with good safety as well as efficacy results (Link).

So, it isn’t the mRNA technology that is a potential problem. This technology is demonstrably very safe and very effective indeed. The only real question, then, is in regard to the protein product of the vaccine – the “spike protein” in the case of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. That’s really the only question here. And, the mRNA vaccines, producing the modified spike protein of COVID-19, have been extensively tested via large double-blinded placebo-controlled trials in both humans and animals – with amazing success regarding efficacy as well as safety. And, these results have continued on now that hundreds of millions of vaccines have been given worldwide. The fact of the matter is that hospital ICUs are currently filling up with those who are very sick and who are dying with COVID-19 (the Delta Variant right now). The significant majority of these people are unvaccinated. These ICUs are not filling up with the vaccinated at all. The vaccines are very clearly highly protective against serious COVID-19 infections. That’s the very clear weight of evidence that we have in hand.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
This presentation has so many sensational conspiracy theories in it that it’s hard to decide where to start. It’s all nonsense. The mRNA vaccines have nothing to do with CRSPR and cannot edit one’s DNA or epigenetics controls. Sure, CRSPR could be delivered via mRNA technology (Link), but this has nothing to do with the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.

“Last month, researchers used mRNA to deliver CRISPR gene-editing technology that could permanently treat a rare genetic disease in humans—an advance that experts say has implications far beyond the treatment of a single condition.” (Link)

There is also no “shedding” from the vaccinated person to any other person. And, “the Japanese study”, mentioned in the video by Dr. Fleming (hopefully no relation to you), deals only with the lipid nanoparticles, not the spike proteins, and only shows that a very tiny fraction of these lipid nanoparticles makes it beyond the injection site to travel to other parts of the body (Link). And, the antibodies produced in vaccinated people against the nucleocapsid as well as the spike protein is due to some vaccinated people having also been infected by the live COVID-19 virus (Link).

Also, this same Dr. Richard Fleming has a history of being convicted of health care, mail, and wire fraud (Link).

“A federal grand jury in Nebraska returned an indictment against Fleming on January 18, 2007, charging ten counts of health care fraud and three counts of mail and wire fraud. The health care fraud counts charged Fleming with submitting bills to insurance companies in 2002 for medical procedures, diagnostic heart tests, he had not actually performed. The mail and wire fraud counts charged Fleming with obtaining payment from a North Carolina soy food company in 2004 for product testing work he had not performed, and more specifically charged him with lying about whether he had performed the services he was paid for, and with creating and submitting false documents in order to cover up the fact that he had not done the work for which he had been paid. The case actually went to trial, which began on April 6, 2009, and the jury was deliberating on their verdict when Fleming pled guilty, admitting that he had committed both health care fraud and mail fraud.”

He’s just not a credible source on any of the claims he’s making – which are demonstrably false in any case.