“In short, we are not born guilty of Adam’s particular …

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

“In short, we are not born guilty of Adam’s particular sin.”

As far as God is concerned, we are born “guilty of every particular sin.” No sin excepted. A sinful nature means a nature full of sin. And it means a nature guilty of every particular sin with none excepted. There is no sin that anyone has committed that you are not guilty of.

Gene asks, “If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!

It is not possible to keep any law of God without being “born again.” You are born a violator of the law by nature and you are born guilty of violating every law, whether you ever subjectively participate in any given sin or not.

You can try to justify your rejection of original sin, but all you do is condemn yourself. If babies are not born guilty of sin even before the subjectively do anything, why were the children of Israel commanded to put the blood on the door post to keep the destroying angel from killing their babies?

Why were the babies of the Egyptians killed, if and when they were actually innocent? We are born sinners, condemned by God because we are born guilty of every sin anyone has ever committed, or ever could commit. Not by our choice, but by Adam’s choice. And what need is there to be “born again” if we are already born spiritually innocent?

Small wonder Jesus says, “Poor, blind, wretched, naked and miserable.”

“An evil tree can not bring forth good fruit.” Neither can a person born in sin do anything but sin. They have no choice in the matter until and unless they are “born again” in Christ who liberates the will to choose another master. We are of our father the devil, and the lust of our father we will do.

“Sold in sin” is how Paul states it. Quit denying the obvious teaching of the bible to justify a superficial definition of sin, as being only what a person knows and does. Millions transgress the law and don’t even know it. You don’t have to know you are sinning to be sinning. Such a view devalues the atonement and limits it solely to human knowledge. God defines sin, not you and me. The curse and wrath of God is on every baby born in the family of Adam. But He has provided an atonement, and whosoever will may come.

Why do you deny the clear teaching of the bible to advocate a superficial explanation of sin and atonement?

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.