“There’s no such thing as being “amoral” (unless one is …

Comment on GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation by Bill Sorensen.

“There’s no such thing as being “amoral” (unless one is born mentally handicapped) since all intelligent humans are given an inherent knowledge, as a Divine gift, of the Royal Law written on the heart (Hebrews 10:16 and Romans 2:14-16).”

So everyone born knows the 7th day is the Sabbath? The moral law is God’s will for the human family. And Adam and Eve knew without any instruction about the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

And people automatically know they should be baptized into Christ to be saved?

By the way, when we went to Junior Camp when I was a kid, we closed the day around the camp fire and one of the songs went like this.
“If I have wounded any soul today,
if I have caused one foot to go astray,
if I have walked in my own wilful way,
Dear Lord, forgive.

The song ended, “Forgive these sins I have confessed to thee,
Forgive the secret sins I do not see.”

You could not sing this song, because there is no need to “forgive the secret sin I do not see.”

Your theory denies any need for forgiveness if you are ignorant and don’t see if and/or how you may have sinned. If you don’t know you have sinned, in your theory, you are not a sinner and don’t need forgiveness.

But in fact Sean, your whole theory is not biblical and the bible affirms again and again in no uncertain obscurity that we have sins of ignorance, and they must be forgiven. The old and new testament both affirm this reality. And the ceremonial law tells a sinner what he must do about sins of ignorance. The morning and evening sacrifice was for the specific purpose of covering the people and their sins of ignorance as well as their sinful nature.

Original sin is so completely and throughly biblical that John Wesley stated that anyone who would deny it is not even a Christian. It is a basic denial of the atonement and its far reaching application for those who accept their culpablity in Adam’s sin, even though they didn ‘t actually do it themselves.

You are like Cain who refused to admit he was a sinner, and would not offer a lamb. He eventually killed his brother Abel and so will everyone else who denies original sin. It is the divide between Christanity and heathenism. We are born lost, condemned and guilty at birth. Even if we never commit a single sin in the first hour. We will sin, because we are born sinners. And the need to be “born again” is imperative as Jesus clearly stated.

You may not post this, but hopefully, you will at least read it for yourself.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
“Would Adam and Eve have been guilty of sin if they had eaten from the “forbidden tree” without first having been told by God that it was forbidden? Would Jesus have had to die to save humanity given such a situation?”

The question is not relevant to the issue. Adam and Eve were grown mature individuals and in Adam’s case, He was the first man. God would never make some rule or law and not tell them what it was, and then condemn them for not doing it. But this is not the situation we are dealing with in this world.

We are dealing with the human family who are the children of Adam and are born without knowledge. Adam was responsible for his children and their morality concerning issues they were not aware of. So, to equate your question with the present issue of sin creates a false dilemma that does not apply to the situation the world is in today.

The quote by EGW is clear about the necessity of the children being covered by the blood of atonement. Because they are born in sin. Adam was not created in a sinful state like his children are after his fall and rebellion.

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Thanks for publishing our conversation. People can decide for themselves what EGW said and whether my comments fits the biblical norm or not.

You might want to consider the word “amoral” that has to do with morality and defines people who are not moral, but ignorant.

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman: Of course you can not answer because your view is faulty. Sin is more comprehensive than your limited view.

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.