Liberals and Progressives always opt for “PLuralism”. This opens the …

Comment on La Sierra University Looking for New Biology Professor by Bill Sorensen.

Liberals and Progressives always opt for “PLuralism”. This opens the door for them to present any idea and philosophy as a viable option to explain truth.

Pluralism means there are no objective givens to explain truth. We need not agree on anything. The only singular thing we agree on, is that everyone believes as they please and teach accordingly, with no accountability to the corporate body.

And of course, no one can “judge” anybody else for what they believe or what they teach.

All this came with the Dr. Ford apostacy and his false gospel that was and is still embraced by more than a few in responsible and influencial positions in the church.

And what’s even more un-settling, is most lay people have no idea or real concern or feel any accountability to deal with this “whole church issue”.

Luther rightly discerned that “the task of interpreting scripture belongs to the whole church community.” This is not the norm in modern Adventism, nor in the Christian world in general.

We have an obvious “identity crisis” that few even recognize or consider relevant. What we don’t deal with today, will be infinitely more difficult to deal with in the future. Until it becomes impossible.

Are we there yet?

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

La Sierra University Looking for New Biology Professor
Paul predicted a “falling away” in the early church. We know how that played out in the establishment of the Papacy.

I don’t think the early believers in Adventism envisioned a “falling away” in the church before the final end. But at this point, it seems more than obvious that such is the case.

Time has a way of allowing the devil to infiltrate the church and work his will if and when the opportunity comes his way. Like the early church, lay member no doubt felt little responsibility for what the church leaders did and/or decided.

Part of it is human nature, coupled with the on-going idea of “church infallibility” that assumes in the end, all will be well. And so our children and grandchildren are being deceived by a false education on various levels.

As David Read said on another forum, SDA’s are not really good bible students and are force fed there spirituality by various false ideas. No one is really all that alarmed about anything in particular. Even when it is fairly common knowledge that evolution is being taught, few feel the need to demand accountability of anyone. Assuming someone else will do it, and all will eventually be OK.

“Turn off the TV and video games. It’s time to get ready!” may well be true. But it is not likely that many will really take is seriously. “I’m OK, you’re OK” is far more appealing to the carnal mind and is an “easy sell” to the church by the church leaders.

If “the church” really believed we were in a “falling away”, there might be some viable hope of a real revival. Few, if any believe it. And thus, continued apathy and apostacy is more likely to be the outcome.

If we have a strong belief in the historic message, we will also need a strong faith to go with it. It is not likely to turn out the way we hope it will. None the less, we can still know “the truth” will triumph inspite of the church, and not necessarily because of it.

God will teach us the hard lesson of patience by way of trial and disappointment. Don’t despair. We must necessarily be close to the end as the liberal and progressive movement continues to work to destroy bible Adventism.

It may well be in the end, all we can keep is our name, Seventh-day Adventist, and everything else will go by the way. It is a major identity crisis, isn’t it?

The shaking will reveal in the end who the real SDA’s are. Let’s hope it is you and me if we “Keep the faith.”

Have a good week,

Bill Sorensen

La Sierra University Looking for New Biology Professor
“Bill, there are two roads-one narrow with few travelers, and one wide with gridlock. We are coming down to the nitty gritty and having the name Seventh-day Adventist is not enough. It requires more than just a name. We have to do some really deep surrender, Bible study, soul searching and moral house cleaning to get on the narrow road. Most SDA’s are going to sadly surprised because they have refused to surrender and do the work that is necessary. Growing up in the system, going to the schools, putting on the facade, is not enough.”

Well, we don’t know for sure. But it may be that the name itself will eventually be the final offense. God approved this name because in the end, it defines what we believe.

Make no mistake. The “spirit” that controls many if not most SDA’s is an anti-Sabbath spirit. That should be obvious as we examine this evolution/creation discussion. Not to mention the eccumenical/celebration movement in Adventism as well as the women’s lib. and gay movement making considerable inroads into the church.

I know that Spectrum does not represent the majority of SDA’s. But they do represent a sizable number who have considerable authority and influence in the SDA church. It seems clear that the majority of church leaders are liberal in their actions if not in their confession of doctrine.

Meaning, you can confess anything you want. It is what you do that demonstrates what you believe. So a person could easily confess a conservative view, and be liberal in action by doing nothing.

When it is finally clearly shown that bible Adventism is EGW Adventism, then no one can oppose and attack her view without admitting they are non-SDA. So far, many who oppose her still claim they are “loyal” to the church. This is in fact, impossible. And when this is clearly preceived, we will see the final split that is inevitable.

Until then, we don’t want to be like Judas and try to “force God’s hand” to bring about the results we think is necessary for a revelation of the final outcome.

So it may well be that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” will eventually define the true and loyal believers as all others won’t want to identify with you and me if we are loyal to our message.

I think there are more than a few who don’t want to identify with us now. And that number will increase more and more in the near future. We want our name back. Regardless of the outcome.

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…]

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.