Beatrice, had it not been for David Read and others …

Comment on La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation by Bill Sorensen.

Beatrice, had it not been for David Read and others like him, LSU would still be doing “business as usual”.

It is more than obvious that church leadership will always do “business as usual” and never correct and discipline itself unless someone actually challenges their actions and demands accountability.

So, some of us appreciate what David Read and other have done, and are still doing, to inform church members of the evil duplicity of many who hold high levels of influence and authority in our schools and other areas of church leadership.

In fact, you, and others who think like you, are the very ones who not only lead the church into apostacy, but agree and support those who do.

Meaning what? Had not David Read and other demanded accountability, we can know and be certain that nothing would have been done either now or in the future. And the measures they have taken to correct the situation are commendable, but hardly adequate to solve the real issue and how deeply it is rooted not only in this situation at LSU, but the whole denomination.

And finally, why was there no “open disclosurer” in the Review or other means of communication to the whole church community concerning this evil at LSU? I’ll tell you why. The church will never admit it has done anything wrong, but when it is so blatantly obvious, will endeavor to (not correct) but modify the situation in the hopes that the problem will “be swept under the rug” and eventually ignored by the vast majority.

You are way out of line to chide David and others for their honest work in exposing LSU and other things that are destroying bible Adventism at a pace compared with the speed of the “lightenings of Ezekiel.”

Hopefully, others are learning more and more their obligations and accountability as church members concerning this and other evils allowed and endorsed in Adventism today.

Keep the faith.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation
What you have posted is correct, James. But in most cases, it is beyond the spiritual mind of most SDA church members. And because of this, few are really involved in any dynamic evaluation of the present spirituality of the SDA church.

“Unconditional election for the church” is a powerful tool that all churches use to hold members in subjection to church authority even when false doctrine is advocated.

So when Luther challenged Staupitz, his spiritual mentor, on this issue, Staupitz could only say, “I can not choose to destroy my church.” Even when he knew Luther was right. And Erasmus followed suit when he said to Luther, “Don’t compromise me with your doctrine and teaching.” He did not want anyone to know he agreed with Luther.

Many individuals wanted to see a spiritual reform in the church but were not ready to stand for truth if it required a cross to do so. When it is assumed that loyalty to the church is, ipso facto, loyalty to Christ, we will always see the result that is manifested in modern Adventism. Unity becomes the final cry and all discent is put down no matter the reason or cause.

“The temple of the Lord are we, the temple of the Lord are we” breeds apostacy. So, ignorance and superstition reign as people bow to the false god of church loyalty and abandon the bible. The situation at LSU is only the tip of the ice berg and we can expect more of the same on many more issues as they surface here and there in the church community.

” For years the church has been looking to man, and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered.”–Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91-93. (1896) {Ev 191.3}

Never was a statement more descriptive of the SDA church as it is today. “The church will decide” or “The church has decided” is how many if not most view every doctrinal issue confronting the church today. In it’s final definition, it is nothing more than Roman Catholic theology. And lazy church members are more than happy to agree to this theory. But it won’t create the final bible Christian community and far more will be lost than saved who are now members of the SDA church.

La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation
If this were the only “sad situation” in the church today, we could hope for some final outcome on a positive note. But it is not. Rather, it represents the major spirituality in the SDA church today. The leaders will never admit it for the obvious reasons.

They have failed miserably in their duty and obligations in administration in both secular matters and especially religious issues.

Unlike John the Baptist who said, “He must increase and I must decrease”, we now have a policy of “we must increase and truth must stand aside as we press our agenda to its final end.”

Only God can “pull the rug out from under them” and when He does, the fall will be intense and great. You know the story of Humpty Dumpty? “All the king’s horses, and all the king’s men” will not solve this problem. It has gone too far.

La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation
“In such an hour as ye think not”, is used by EGW to show that our names will come up in judgment at a time when we are not ready because we refused to heed the warning to get ready for His coming.

So, while the actual coming of Jesus is a true biblical application of the phrase, it has a real dynamic meaning in light of the close of probation and the final judgment that preceeds this event.

As a church, we still talk about the second coming regularly. But we seldom mention the close of probation and final atonement for the true Christian community. This event is the dynamic of the SDA message and mission. If a person is not ready for the close of probation, they will not be ready for the second coming. Yet we skip this first event and its dynamic judgment by the law, and advocate grace as all you have to do is “believe” and you are ready for Jesus to come.

And this is why we have so much apostacy and liberal doctrine and teaching in the church today. A fair question may well be, “Can the SDA church become the final antichrist movement?” We must seriously consider the possibility and even the likelihood and certainty of it unless we see some real responsible spiritual movement in the leadership of our church.

God’s means of grace by way of a church has consistently abandon the truth in the end, and always been the worst opposer of God and His kingdom. Why should we conclude the SDA movement is exempt from this possiblity? This, in fact, is why we are in such a deplorable spiritual state today.

Keep the faith

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.