Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bill Sorensen.
Sean, would you assume in the new year that there could or would be a discussion that goes beyond what has been dialogued about for the last several years?
Like yourself, Advindicate, Spectrum, A-today and others are always the “same-o same-o” with the same people going on and on about the same issues and same conclusions.
We could “forum hop” from place to place and still see the same thing. In which case, what is the value of all the “independent” forums and their agendas? Yours is especially selective in that your whole scope of discussion is basically creation vs. evolution.
Kevin Paulson has taken over Advindicate to a large degree. He envisions himself as a great theologian everywhere he posts and pontificates all over the internet.
The highest position I ever held in the SDA church was head elder for a couple of years. But I think there are a lot of people, including myself, who know considerable more “theology” and bible truth than some who hold various levels of church influence and authority, in which case, we find it somewhat difficult at times to find any real unity, either now, or even hopefully in the near future.
I only used Kevin as a classic example and do not have any personal ax to grind with him, but more with the church in general. He represents the classic problem. And areas of disagreement does not mean people are not Christians on both sides of a discussion. It does mean that many in higher positions are able to use their influence and authority in a more comprehensive manner than a “regular” church member who may be more informed and “enlightened” than some who hold these higher positions.
At any rate, many of us appreciate the effort that you and others put forth to inform church members who desire to know the in’s and out’s of church issues.
We all hope the new year will bring a more biblical unity based on clear bible truths and bring us closer to the final goal of the second coming. Many of us are convinced that God will yet produce a Christian community with a more comprehensive understanding of the bible as the final basis of Christian unity.
Thanks again for your effort to stimulate thinking to this end, even if your forum is rather selective in discussion topics.
Keep the faith.
Bill Sorensen Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
” That is why a form of empirical evidence, a form of science, is useful as a rational basis for a type of faith and solid hope that goes beyond religious “wishful thinking”.”
It may not be helpful, Sean, to call Christian faith “wishful thinking” because it is based on spiritual revelations instead of science.
Of course, there is a false spiritual faith based on spirit revelations not supported by the bible. And this may well be “wishful thinking”. But the phrase does not apply in a wholesale application as you seem to imply.
If you “over-credit” some evidence for support of bible truth, and “under-credit” evidence that is more sure and reliable, you undermine your own desire to support any given truth and/or concept.
We are talking about faith and motive. So what motivates true bible faith? If that is our goal, we must find the strongest basis for a faith motive that can be found. While I think science is certainly helpful, it is still not the most important nor convincing “evidence” for creation as described in the bible.
In fact, I am not sure you are convincing anyone of your theory of how to stimulate faith in creation with the God of the bible as being the creator. So, even if you can convince some people of ID, you still have not affirmed it is the God of the bible who is this intelligent being. They may even accept ID, and still reject the God of the bible.
So, where do you go from there? I suggest you must go to the bible itself where prophecy is declared and fulfilled, and thus we “have a more sure word of prophecy…..” that can and will stimulate faith in the bible and its declarations of creation and other important information concerning sin and redemption. Science is a “weak crutch” to convince and/or prove faith in the God of scriptures.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
I might add this important point, when people say we are “not under the law”, it will always end up claiming we are not “under the authority of the bible” as a final application of “not under the law.” And then people look for outside affirmation for their conclusions about any and all bible teaching.
This is evident by those who abandon clear bible teaching on creation and opt for scientific knowledge to draw a final conclusion. But to be “under the law” in its true biblical context is stated by Jesus who said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
Let us willingly subject ourselves to be “under the law” and acknowledge not only the authority of scripture, but affirm God’s right to rule His people by way of the bible, including the 10 commandments.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Faith in the historical process of the past is tied to the continuing process in the future. The bible is a complete historical process, past, present, and future. So that it is a complete picture. If you doubt any part of this “revelation” you must necessarily doubt the whole of it.
In the sovereignty of God, everything is past. But when He chooses to break into our historical process, He does not know anymore than we do. And this is by way of His free choice. Which means, any time He wants to, He can have complete knowledge, past, present, and future.
Only if we understand this paradox, can we even begin to understand the bible and its message of salvation. And we must not play off one aspect of this truth against the other, so that one, or the other, is negated. If and when we do it, the bible is a mass of confusion with no viable continuity.
We can place God at the beginning of human history and declare that He is predicting the future, or, we can place Him at the end, and claim He is only declaring what has already happened. So, “God, calleth those things which be not, as though they were.” Rom. 4:17. This is declaring the future as a past event.
There is no need to “figure it out”. We just accept it “by faith”, and our faith is the evidence the bible is true, at least to those who believe. And in this paradox, we find a consistent flowing continuity that makes sense to a believer, but is not comprehendable to an unbeliever. Why? Because there is no continuity nor rational understanding of God, or the bible, unless you accept the paradox. And this applies to many biblical concepts of truth.
Hope you all have a great new year.
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.
