From the article: “Religion and science don’t need to be at …

Comment on Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit by Bill Sorensen.

From the article:

“Religion and science don’t need to be at odds.”

This statement is false. Only and unless scientists acknowledge the biblical account by way of revelation which transcends any scientific study and conclusions [will there be harmony].

Science does not allow for miracles. Period. As soon as you allow for the super-natural that goes beyond the natural, you are subjecting any scientific finding as being false if and when it implies a conclusion contrary to the biblical revelation.

Unless we accept this reality, we are setting ourselves up to be deceived. Origins can not be explained by natural law.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Well, we are talking about “creation science” and not simply natural law science. Sometimes, salvation is called a “science”.

To make no distinction between creation science by way of natural law or divine acts is a very big mistake.

And by the way, I personally spend little of my time here in discussion. In fact, on the average, I probably spend less than an hour a day on the internet reading and responding to all the blogs and forums I read and/or post on.

Bill Sorensen


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Sean asks…..

“It all depends upon how you define a “miracle”. Is the creation of a loaf of bread a “miracle”? – or a chocolate cake or an automobile or a space ship?”

Of course they are not, Sean. They can all be explained by way of science. You simply alter with you already have and put it into another state.

A miracle is beyond natural law explaination. Such as “God spake, and it was done.”

God did not alter something from one state to another. He created something from nothing. Human can work relative “miracles” by manipulation of what they already have. But this is not a divine miracle as stated and explained in the bible.

I am not opposing you, Sean, on the fact that science can be some evidence and even powerful evidence for the biblical revelation. But it is not equal in authority and can not be trusted as an equal authority in defining origins.

It is a relative supporting evidence that helps affirm the biblical revelation to those of us who believe the scriptures.

Bill Sorensen


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Sean said…..

“Notice especially the phrase “The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.” That phrase is key.”

Let me suggest, Sean, that this is the “key” phrase….

“Those who take the written word as their counselor will find in science an aid to understand God.”

The point is this, either one, or the other must necessarily be the final authority if and when conflicts become evident. They are not equal in authority as it seems you would imply.

Neither is the perfect harmony and unity by way of science and natural law. There is always apparent conflict and disagreement between the two sources of information.

Neither is it possible to resolve the conflict and disagreement by way of science. So, how then do we resolve any conflict and disagreement?

We hold scriptural revelation over and above scientific revelation placing final authority in the scriptural revelation.

And finally, it is utterly impossible to resolve the conflict between the two by appealing to science as the means to resolve the conflict.

Human reason can not see the perfect harmony between the two by way of science. Only God’s word can ultimately resolve any apparent differences and these are resolved by way of a miracle that supercedes natural law.

Final authority resides in scripture.

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.