If this was not such a serious issue, these two …

Comment on God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy by Bill Sorensen.

If this was not such a serious issue, these two guys should be laughed out of town. Ten year old kids could easily understand what these guys hope to obscure.

Skepticism, unbelief, doubt, and every evil attack on the bible is the norm in our day. Even in the SDA church.

So, the question, ” Why does La Sierra hire people who do not believe the Bible for what it actually says? Does anyone have an answer? Does the Board not care? Do the constituents not care? Does ANYONE care?”

I suggest that we individually “care” because no one is going to “care” for us. And if we are waiting for someone to “care” who will do anything about it, I suspect we are in for a long wait.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy
PS Currently http://ssnet.org is featuring an article by Cindy Tutsch entitled, “Does It Matter How Long God Took to Create?”

Cindy blogs on A-today. She is conservative in her SDA views and defends her convictions.

Daniel was thrown into the lions den. I am not sure we are required to “jump” into the lions den when we know the situation.

Eve was not required to dialogue with the Snake, and when she did, it was more than she could handle. She felt real secure in what she thought she knew.

But, the devil was able to out think her, and through subtle reasoning, convince her otherwise concerning her faith.

It is a matter of caution.

“Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed, lest he fall.” Ask Pippim.

Bill Sorensen


God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy
Any God ordained movement worth a nickle or a dime is always “radical”.

The pioneers discerned that before Jesus comes, the whole world will be confronted with the bible Sabbath and it is and will be the testing truth of who is a believer and who is not.

Simply meaning, when Jesus comes, there will be no Sunday keepers at that time who will be saved. Some who have died before that time may well be saved since some have not been enlightened about this issue.

This truth was even more radical in the days of the pioneers because they were incredibly few and the task of informing would seem impossible.

This radical truth is not really believed by many in the SDA church of today, and thus, our motivation for confrontation has diminished considerable.

For many, even the issue of creation vs. evolution is a non-issue concerning salvation. Once a false gospel is advocated and received in a church community, it soon wears away more than a few aspects of truth in general and the law in particular.

So, the issue of Sabbath vs. Sunday is still advocated, but with less conviction and dynamic since many believe Sunday keepers will be saved, even up until the time of the second coming.

Once you “new model” the cause, it is doubtful you can truly re-capture the original dynamic in the church as a whole. No doubt some can and will eventually see what has been lost and return to the loyalty of the historic SDA faith.

Some just need to be re-affirmed in their original convictions that have been continually undermined over the last few decades. The church within the church, will eventually be “the church”.

In which case, the church will get a lot smaller before it can eventually fulfill its God ordained calling. We just need to be sure we know what we believe and why.

We are a “close of probation” ministry like Noah before the flood. The sun is setting on the “day of salvation” and many are too indifferent to get ready and be ready.

When Jesus comes, the living church will be a Sabbath keeping church and no Sunday keeper at that time will be saved.

Is that radical or what?

Bill Sorensen


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…]
-sdp


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.