Let me ask you and Sean a question, Bob. It …

Comment on Two Adventist Universities Promote Six-Day Creation by Bill Sorensen.

Let me ask you and Sean a question, Bob. It is hypothetical, but we might speculate to some degree its implications.

What if God created everything in the world including Adam and Eve, but never revealed Himself to them as the Creator?

In which case, all they have is nature to decide and determine who they are, where they came from and where they are going.

Do you suppose they could eventually decide there must be a “god” who created them, or, would they be more likely to consider some process of evolution that eventually brought them into existence?

Obviously, I don’t know the answer and neither does anyone else. But I would tend to believe they would opt for evolution by way of science. Or, perhaps, think of some ID that was beyond communication.

At any rate, I am convinced that nature itself without the divine revelation of God to man is worthless to bring anyone to a viable conclusion about origins.

As for Paul’s statement, you must remember that all cultures had some knowledge of God. God had preserved a knowledge of Himself by way of tradition and this knowledge had been passed down from generation to generation.

So, even though a pure and true knowledge of God was unknown to the heathen, Paul claims they are still culpable for what they did know and could observe by way of nature. It was not nature alone that Paul appealed to in reigning them up before the divine tribunal. But moral accountability by way of traditional values passed from generation to generation.

As an example, marriage is not some “natural law” conclusion based on science and nature. Marriage was ordained by God in Eden and passed on for thousands of years in every culture from Adam’s time until today. It is moral law.

And nature requires no legal unity before an intimate bonding can be effectual in child bearing. How well we know this is true in our society today.

Remember, Paul said “because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge….” was the reason they gave way to corrupting and immoral activities that even nature could not and did not harmonize with.

The ultimate knowledge of God is not by way of nature or science, but by divine revelation as God reveals Himself in His word. This is important in light of the great controversy because Satan said to Eve….”In the day thou eatest thereof, you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.”

Meaning, you will need no “divine revelation” of what is good or bad, you can discern for yourselves what is true and what is not, by way of nature and science.

Or more clearly, “You will need no law from God to be an authority over you life, you can be your own law.” Independence in other words. Or, self government outside God’s authority.

And this is the bottom line of evolution vs. creation. The worship of nature vs. the worship of God as the creator.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Two Adventist Universities Promote Six-Day Creation
Sean said……

” Nothing is absolutely provable.”

Yes, Sean, somethings are absolutely proveable.

The blind man was blind and there was no doubt. The blind man could see, and there was not doubt about that either.

What was not “provable” was “the how” of going from one to the other.

First the Pharisees doubted that he was even blind in the beginning. So they demanded evidence and got it. Now they are satisfied that he was blind and can now see.

Next they demand to know how it came about.
There was no scientific evidence of the “how” of it, so they finally admitted it was no doubt a miracle.

But they still would not credit Jesus with miracle powers. So they said, “Give God the glory, and not Jesus.”

When he chided them for their unbelief, they said “we know Moses and the prophets, as for this man, we know not where He came from.”

And they threw the man out of the church.

Later in other stories, we learn they moved to more radical positions. In this story, they acknowledged it was God’s power that healed the blind man. But later, they didn’t want to admit that Jesus was God’s servant, and claimed that Jesus healed by the power of the devil.

And this is the unpardonable sin. To attribute the work of God to being the work of Satan closes the door for the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin or affirm any bible truth. And of course, leads eventually to claiming the work of Satan is the work of God.

From this point on, God has no means to “change their mind” and they are “sealed” in their rebellion and unbelief. So that, no matter what God did, they would claim it was Satan.

Have you ever seen this happen before?

Go read the Spectrum forum and you will see the process in action. And I am not saying anyone who posts there has committed the unpardonable sin. I am saying you can see the process in action.

Bill Sorensen


Two Adventist Universities Promote Six-Day Creation
Sean said….

“Let me also point out, yet again, that nothing is absolutely provable. Of course ID isn’t absolutely provable by empirical means. No scientific hypothesis is absolutely provable. That doesn’t mean that scientific hypotheses are therefore not useful or do not provide a very significant degree of predictive value…”

And this is where we agree, Sean. But it seems that at times, you would indicate that science can not only be helpful in understanding creation, but by way of science we can “prove” to an unbeliever there is a “god” who has done the creating.

You probably know that Mormons believe that “god” simply manipulated what already is, and He can create nothing without first having something to start with.

This would not be contrary to ID. But it would be contrary to the bible.

When Jesus healed the blind man in John 9, the religious leaders first asked his parents how Jesus did this. They said they did not know, to ask their son.

So, they asked him how Jesus did it. His response was, “I don’t know, all I know is I was blind and now I see.”

In this story, this is no explaining “how” the man was healed. But there was proveable evidence that he was healed.

But the final line is this. Even though it was “proveable” by the evidence that the man was healed, it still could not be “proved” that Jesus did it.

Even the man’s parents affirmed that he was born blind. Everyone who knew him knew he was blind. Now he can see. That’s is non-negotiable as a fact.

But did Jesus actually heal him? He didn’t know. His parents didn’t know. And when Jesus confronted him later on, it was Jesus Himself who confirmed that He was the one who healed him.

And, of course, the man believed Him.

So I don’t deny the validity of evidence, but it will not prove who God was or that it was even the God of the bible that did the creating. Not to an unbeliever anyway.

He must first be convince of the validity of the bible itself that affirms who God is and His testimony about Himself in scripture. And as I stated before, it is bible prophecy that nails the reality of bible truth beyond question.

People who want to discredit the bible always end up attacking bible prophecy. Especially Daniel.

So even Jesus affirms His identity by “Moses and the prophets” as “proof” of who He is and the purpose of His mission.

The problem with science, is that it will not be in harmony with miracles and it eventually must deny the bible since miracles can not be tested nor affirmed as possible by science.

As Christians, we simply hold the word of God above science and we need not apologize for doing so, nor try to “prove” what we believe by way of a test tube.

Bill Sorensen


Two Adventist Universities Promote Six-Day Creation
Sean, I think you mentioned the Greeks kept and 8 day week until The Sunday law was enforced by secular society.

I guess I could wonder how it affected them biologically if in any way at all?

Did they feel dis-oriented because of it? Did it upset their social order? Did they lose sleep because of it?

I doubt you are correct because it doesn’t make any sense to me. It does make sense to me that God created the 7 day week cycle and affirmed it by the Sabbath on the last day of the cycle.

I don’t see people becoming dis-oriented because they work on the Sabbath. Firemen often work in 48 hr. shifts. And not always on the same days of the week. And I don’t think they are dis-oriented by this work schedule.

Most SDA’s build their life around a 7 day week cycle and find it very beneficial. God ordained it. It has physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and many other benefits. But I think it is God ordained, not written on our DNA.

And as I said, if it is, I have no objection. I just don’t think it is consistent with a distinction between moral law and nature.

You know I don’t object to showing “evidences” by way of nature and science to support some ID. But you also know I don’t think you can “prove” ID by nature or science.

If as Christians, we believe God has always existed even if we can not explain this nor prove it, an evolutionist can equally claim nature has existed forever based on the same argument.

In which case, neither side can “prove” a first cause. And neither side could claim they need to.

As bible Christians, we believe the bible debunks evolution and the two theories are mutually exclusive. This is all we can really conclude by way of logic and science.

Our first goal is to validate the trustworthiness of the bible. Prophecy does this best. And then we can show evolution is not possible if the bible is true. Why try to be more definitive than this? Nature does not deny the bible, but nature does not deny evolution either.

Neither one can “prove” a first cause.

Bill Sorensen


Recent Comments by Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” That’s what I’ve been saying (and what Morris Venden and MacCarty have been saying)”

Well, I did not do a complete search on all the MacCarty says or believes. But in the case of Venden, I did do such a study and Venden had a doctrine of “sanctification by faith alone” that was totally outside the bible teaching.

“Faith alone” by definition means we play no part in it. If so, it is not “faith alone”. But Venden’s view of sanctification was definitely “faith alone” and we play no part in it but believe. At any rate, there is more confusion than bible definition in his definition of sanctification, and I think this applies to MacCarty as well. Like I said, I read his book a couple years ago and it was circular with no real definition of what he meant.

But basically, he equated the old covenant with legalism which is bogus. We agree a misapplication of the old covenant is not the same thing as a clear understanding of the old covenant and its purpose. So let’s not take a misapplication of the old covenant, and then claim this is the old covenant.

As you have defended the Sabbath against a misapplication of the new covenant and not called it the new covenant we must do the same with the old covenant. Our conclusion should be that a misapplication of any truth does not equate to the truth that is being misapplied. The confusion continues on many levels in the SDA community today.

Your defense of creation against the liberal agenda is a classic illustration of how the liberal agenda misapplies the new covenant on every level from false teaching to simply denying the bible outright. And all this from a misapplication of the new covenant that creates a false “spirit ethic” that takes the place of the bible and the ten commandments.

I appreciate the dialogue. Some may see the point eventually and some never will. Since we don’t know who’s who in this context, we leave it up to God to sort out the various issues and determine who “gets it” and who don’t.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

I never said any such thing or even suggested it. Did you even read what I wrote. If so, you decided to impute to me something I never said or suggested. Let’s at least try to be objective in our evaluation of what the other person said.

I said the Holy Spirit liberates the will and by the power of the Holy Spirit, we can choose to believe, repent and obey. How then is this your false claim that I think “You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

You rightly point out that without the Holy Spirit, we have no way to know God’s will, let alone do it. And yes, Jesus “puts enmity between sinful beings and the kingdom of Satan.”

But “putting the enmity by Christ” will save no one until and unless they choose to respond in the God ordained way He has stated in the bible. Each individual must choose to first accept the atonement, then repent, and then obey the law. Thus, the Holy Spirit empowers the will, but it is the sinner who must respond. And this is not “doing it on their own” as you seem to imply. Jesus said, “Without me, you can do nothing.” But as Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ which stengthenth me.”

Paul states what he can do by the power of God. And it is not God doing the believing, or repenting or obeying. It is Paul. EGW makes this very clear to refute the mystics who try to claim that Jesus or the Holy Spirit gets in them and does the willing and doing.

” While these youth were working out their own salvation, God was working in them to will and to do of his good pleasure. Here are revealed the conditions of success. To make God’s grace our own, we must act our part. The Lord does not propose to perform for us either the willing or the doing. His grace is given to work in us to will and to do, but never as a substitute for our effort. Our souls are to be aroused to co-operate. The Holy Spirit works in us, that we may work out our own salvation. This is the practical lesson the Holy Spirit is striving to teach us. “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR
August 20, 1903
Lessons From the Life of Daniel—9
This concerning Daniel and his friends.

She refutes the modern day mysticism that would destroy the will of man and interpret “Christ in you, the hope of glory” totally outside the biblical context.

But “Christ in you, the hope of glory” is the same thing reflected in the words of Paul, “For me to live is Christ.” Meaning, I love Jesus so much my whole life is dedicated to His glory and will.

Our “own works” that she refers to, are those people do outside a biblical relationship with Christ. It does not refer to the works of a true believer who conforms his life to emulate the life of Christ. Where does Skip MacCarty point out this difference?

Much, if not most of modern spirituality in Adventism is pure mysticism that convolutes the identity of Christ and the believer to the point the believer has no identity. It was highly stimulated by Morris Venden who tried to show that “faith alone” applies equally to sanctification as it does to justification. It was and is totally bogus. But it has infiltrated the church by him and others to the point that mysticism is rapidly becoming the major spirituality of the church.

You may mean well, Sean. But like so many others, you don’t take the time to carefully consider the implications of what you say nor explain it is a clear definitive way so that it fits the bible context. If the true bible position on sanctification is clearly presented, then it is obvious we “save ourselves” by the way we respond to the word of God. In which case, the law is salvational, but only in the biblical context. Simply put, we are “saved” by doing what God says and this includes faith in the atonement.

Many are so “hell bent” to avoid what they think is legalism, they wrest the scriptures to their own destruction and not only deceive themselves, but others who do not carefully consider the implications of the conclusion of their false idea and theory.

But to claim that those who reject your view think they can “do it on their own” is a false representation that prejudices others who don’t carefully follow the conversation. Having said all this, I am more than willing for anyone to explain and qualify and re-qualify as many times as necessary to make it very clear what they mean by what they say.

So I agree, sanctification is by faith, but not by “faith alone” in the same context that justification is by faith alone. Without a clear explanation, all we have is ongoing confusion on sin and salvation and the divine factor vs. the human factor in a full and complete view of what the bible teaches about the issues.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“We “work out our own salvation” by simply opening to the door the Spirit of God. That’s our only “work” to do here. That’s the only “work” we can do. The rest is beyond human power.”

Your whole theory is pure mysticism as the rest of your explanation affirms. The purpose of sanctification on the part of God is to liberate the human will for self government. It is the believing sinner who chooses to have faith and repent, and obey the law of God.

Neither is it “automatic” but by careful evaluation of the will of God and the implications of the outcome if we chose not to accept the free offer. You undermine and in the end, destroy the human factor in salvation and the moral accountability of man.

So when we are confronted by the gospel, we must choose to believe, choose to repent and choose to obey. God will not do this for us. Neither will the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the “holy motive” as He inspires and empowers us to “save ourselves” by responding to the word of God exactly as it is stated in the bible.

Much of the SDA church has opted for some mystical non-biblical explanation of the plan of salvation that has no affinity to the true teaching of the bible.

So sanctification is not “just give yourself to Jesus and He will do the rest.”

Basically, you convolute the divine factor and human factor in such a way that you end up negating the human factor altogether.

I doubt anything I would share with you would challenge your thinking, since in the past you have rejected other clear biblical concepts on sin and salvation like the doctrine of original sin. At any rate, if you post my response, perhaps one of your readers will actually see the point and consider the implications of our dialogue.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Yes, as EGW and the bible affirm, we are justified by obedience to the moral law. Not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. And this is what the Investigative judgment is all about. The word “justification” in the bible has a more comprehensive meaning than people perceive today. Like the word “atonement” and “salvation” the word “justification” has been limited to a non-biblical meaning and application that foreign to the bible and the full meaning the bible gives to these words.

And yes, we save ourselves by the way we respond to the word of God. No, we don’t save ourselves by meriting heaven and earning the favor of God. “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” Jesus

This is too plain to be misunderstood except by those who convolute the bible to support their false doctrine. No one is justified by “faith alone” except the special context used by the Reformation to oppose Rome when Rome taught legal merit in the believer’s response to the conditions for salvation.

“Faith alone” in this context was “Christ alone” who stands in the presence of God in our behalf as the meritorious cause of salvation and eternal life. This is not sanctification nor is sanctification “by faith alone” as some faulty teachers try to present and defend. Sanctification is always by faith and works on the part of the believer as we “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.”

And justification by faith in the bible, is the believer’s faith in Christ, not Christ’s faith in the believer. This subject is so confused and warped by SDA scholars it has no affinity to bible teaching and doctrine. So it is the believer’s faith in Christ that justifies. This is the whole theme of Paul and the new testament emphasis and message.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” “All that the Lord has said, we will do.” (Exodus 19:8).”

That’s right Sean. And the Lord said, “The people have well spoken there commitment.” But then added, “Oh that there was such an heart in them to do it.”

The issue was proper motivation based on a clear understanding of sin and all that this implies. God never chided them for their statement of faith but their lack of understanding the sinful human heart.

How is that any different than today in the new covenant era? How many are baptized making the same valid commitment and confession of faith only to find the difficulty of living out the Christian experience.

Neither will Jesus get into anybody and obey the law for them. The motivation will ratchet up as our understanding is increased and the love of God that motivates works in a more dynamic way with the increased knowledge.

But many assume the old covenant was a system of legalism and then contrast the new covenant as a true system of faith. This is bogus. True believers in the old covenant era trusted in Christ. These are the old covenant experience people and not Cain or anyone else in that era who either refused the offer God provided or convoluted it. So those who imply that the old covenant was in and of itself a system of legalism like MacCarty does, have a false idea of old and new covenant that is simply not biblical. And then they try to explain how in the new covenant God writes the law on our heart and not in stone.

God wrote His law on the heart of Abel, Noah, Abraham and every true believer in the old covenant era as Jesus “put enmity between Satan and man” by a revelation of the love of God in His willingness to make atonement for fallen man. The new covenant era simply means God will finish writing His law on the heart of every true believer and this is not some “new” covenant different than the old.

Only in the sense that the atonement promised in the past is now a reality in the present. And this ratchets up the motivation in harmony with the life of Jesus more fully revealed by way of the new covenant writers. It is false doctrine to present the idea that no one had the law “written on their heart” during the old covenant era. Did you ever read the words of David in the Psalms, “Create in me a new heart, and renew a right spirit within me.”?

This is not the new covenant in the old covenant era. There is no “new covenant believer” in the old covenant era. This is impossible. The new covenant is after the fact of the atonement and is based on the time element of the two covenants. The first covenant (old covenant) is based on a future event. The new covenant is based on a past event. This is the whole spirituality of Paul and repeated and affirmed in the book of Hebrews. What God had promised during the old covenant era, He has done.

There is certainly an affinity in both covenants as both are based on Jesus and His sacrifice. Everyone in heaven will have trusted in the atonement of the cross whether it was before Jesus made the atonement or after He made the atonement. Again, I say it is bogus to claim Cain represents an old covenant experience and Abel a new covenant experience. And it is equally false to claim anyone who is a legalist in the new covenant era is an old covenant experience. Namely this, the old covenant is not legalism and never was. Just because people corrupt the old covenant does not equate to claiming they were legalists by virtue of being in the old covenant era.

This is MacCarty’s error and he speaks for more than a few SDA scholars who are as confused as he is. God made no legal covenant with anyone with the exception of His Son. God’s covenant with all is based on the moral law and this is not legalism unless, like the Catholic church, you think you can merit heaven by keeping the moral law.

The moral law, like I said, is a family law and those who refuse to enter into this moral covenant to “obey and live” will never be in heaven. Children in a loving home don’t obey their parents to merit and earn the favor of their parents or earn a place in the family. None the less, they are in covenant relationship with their parents and if they rebel enough, can be disinherited, just like Adam and Eve who rebelled against the family law.

Adam and Eve in a state of sinlessness were not meriting the favor of God. Nor do the sinless angels merit the favor of God. Nor do the redeemed in heaven merit the favor of God. None the less, all are under obligation to obey the family law of God or forfeit eternal life like Adam and Eve in the garden. Love for God never releases anyone from the moral obligation to do God’s will and submit to His authority. This issue is so intense even in the SDA church that many now assume if you love God you have no obligation to obey and that you simply do God’s will because “you want to, not because you have to.” This is bogus and the lie of Satan that he advocated in heaven. We better get it straight and if not, “Spiritualism is at the door deluding the whole world.”
Bill Sorensen