Comment on GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation by Sean Pitman.
“If ye were blind, ye would have no sin that could not be pardoned, but now you say, ‘we see’, therefore, your sin is unpardonable.”
Now you’re just changing what Jesus actually said in an effort to justify your claims. The context of Jesus’ statement is quite clear as it reads and is consistent with the underlying problem of sin. The fact is that all sins are pardonable except for the one sin of refusing to admit error once an error is recognized as such. Pardon is not limited to “sins of ignorance” as you suggest here. I really don’t think you understand the basic problem with sin. That is why you don’t seem to want to address the reason why Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden (Hint: It wasn’t because they were blind to what they were doing – that they hadn’t been told not to do what they did.).
You see, sin is and always has been a conscious rebellion against what is known to be true due to a lack of love for the truth. It’s all based on the motive of selfless love. Sin is selfishness at the expense of others. That’s it. Otherwise, there simply is no moral failure and therefore no sin. And, contrary to your claim, “sins of ignorance” would not have required the blood of Jesus – and Mrs. White doesn’t say otherwise. Such an idea goes against every sense of fairness and justice. Again, according to your claim Adam and Eve would have “sinned” by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil even if God had not told them not to do it – and Jesus would have had to die given such a situation?! Of course, that’s a ridiculous argument.
The real reason why Adam and Eve sinned (and why Jesus had to die to save them – and us) is because God told them not to do something and, in the full light of this knowledge, they did it anyway for selfish reasons. Again, this is why Jesus had to die to save the fallen race. Because we all have deliberately rebelled against what we knew was right for selfish reasons – contrary to the Royal Law of Love which forms the very foundation of all Divine Law. When the Bible says that, “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4) the transgression here is fundamentally against the Law of Love. Where there is no transgression against the Royal Law of Love, toward God or man, there is no sin.
In short, it seems to me that you’re misreading both Mrs. White and the Bible here. But, we’ve been through this many times before I don’t care to rehash all this yet again…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
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).
This is a key difference between humans and animals since animals are indeed amoral creatures. It is for this reason that all humans will be judged on a moral basis according to the Royal Law. This is not true for animals. Unlike humans, animals with not face a “Judgement Day”. Why not? Because, unlike humans, they are not morally responsible for the things that they do.
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
I disagree. This hypothetical situation speaks to your argument that “sins” can be and are committed in complete ignorance – which is nonsense. Being born in a state of separation from God isn’t the same thing as “sinning” against God. Such a condition may be the result of sin, but it isn’t the same thing as sinning – according to both the Bible and according to every sense of justice and fair play.
In any case, I do not care to rehash all this, yet again, with you. This ends our discussion on this topic – at least in this forum.
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Obviously we disagree – as I’ve explained regarding this quote and many others like it from both the Bible and Ellen White in some detail already.
You erroneously equate simple “errors” (due to honest ignorance) with things like the deliberate rebellion of Adam and Eve – which did in fact require the blood of Christ as an atonement. Your view of “sin” here would make anyone who is not omniscient (and who is therefore inevitably bound to fall into various errors from time to time) a “sinner” – even the angels in Heaven! That’s simply a mistaken view of why Jesus had to die – an error that causes you to modify the actual words of Jesus Himself on this topic (John 9:41; John 15:22-24). Honest errors, which are not against the fundamental moral code or “Royal Law” of love, would simply require additional information to correct – not the blood of Jesus.
Again, I suggest that you move on and start your own blog on this topic. This forum simply isn’t the place for it.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
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.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
