By the way, just as an observation and some speculation …

Comment on Strumming the Attached Strings by Bill Sorensen.

By the way, just as an observation and some speculation on my part, I would suggest that EGW would be banned from posting on Spectrum or A-today.

I think her straight forward testimony would leave them feeling a little “out to lunch” in their so-called “freedom of expression.”

Their “freedom” is primarily to affirm each other in their attack on bible Adventism. A few conservative voices are heard, but not many.

Perhaps A-today feels some sense of affirmation by way of Herb Douglas and Monte Salin. Neither of which will openly confront the ministry for what it is. An anti-SDA ministry along with Spectrum.

I guess we will never know for sure about EGW and how she would respond. But I think we can come pretty close to an accurate conclusion by the way she confronted people in her day. Such as Kellogg, Canright, Smith and Butler, Jones and Waggoner and a host of others who at various times began a departure from the bible.

As far as EGW herself was concerned, she was a woman called of God to do a man’s job. And under the circumstances, she did a fantastic job considering the day and age in which she lived. God at first called two different men who refused the calling. To show His sovereignty, He then called a woman who was weakest of the weak and accomplished His goal. But we should note that she was not God’s original choice.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Strumming the Attached Strings
“Liberals and Progressives live by the term “tolerance” except when it comes to them tolerating what they do not want to hear.”


Like or Dislike: 1 3

I see you got 3 thumbs down, Holly. I suspect the liberals read this forum, even if they don’t comment.

As for posting, Sean has to decide what he thinks is viable to the goals he preceives for the church.

I never would have allowed Ken to post as long as he did because his influence could never be ultimately positive being an agnostic. I guess he left on his own. And maybe still lurks and reads various comments.

None of us would desire him to develop a negative attitude either toward Christanity in general nor Adventism in particular. But I think his over all spirituality would lend itself toward Universalism and maybe He would have felt rather inclined to endorse Ron’s views.

As far as Adventism and Pluralism is concerned, one major factor is the inability of church leaders in responsible positions to correctly define bible Adventism themselves. In which case, Pluralism became an option in some cases, at least, to cover ignorance.

Maybe they should listen more to lay members of the church for input and less to their peers and co-workers.

I think most of us truly believe God will yet create the Christian community by way of the bible as the Holy Spirit leads those who seek truth to find it. So that the church on earth reflects the church in heaven as to doctrine and practice.

It should also be obvious that unless you have a pure bible doctrine, it is totally impossible to have an experience and practice of truth that emulates biblical norms.

Even the liberals know this and opt for faulty doctrine being non-relevant as long as you “believe in Jesus”, whoever that is?
Since we can’t possible know who Jesus is without a clear biblical understanding of His ministry, mission and teaching.

Those who hold such a view will necessarily embrace the antichrist who knows well how to present a semblance of truth mixed with enough error to confuse and deceive, “if possible, the very elect.”

So, what you said, Holly is very relevant….”Liberals and Progressives live by the term “tolerance” except when it comes to them tolerating what they do not want to hear.”

They don’t want to “hear” what I just posted. It doesn’t fit their liberal theology and liberal agenda. So, as people like David continue to challenge their false theology, they become more than a little unsettled by such a confrontation and respond accordingly.

What we see is only a small sample of the world wide spiritual war that begins in Adventism and culminates in the battle of Armagedon.

But the positive for true and loyal SDA’s is the final out pouring of the latter rain and the loud cry and final gathering of all of God’s people from every denomination. Even though some of this is very painful spiritually, we can’t relent nor cave in to popular opinion even if it is the majority opinion in modern Adventism.

Here is hopeing we all have a great Sabbath experience as a deeper understanding of the Sabbath is what seals us into the truth, “so that we can not be moved.” Selah

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Strumming the Attached Strings
George Hamilton said…..

“We can’t trust any leader, or any institution to be the ark of safety. It’s between me and my Lord.”

Until church members really believe this stated truth, we will continue in a statis quo mode. “Loyalty to the church is loyalty to God” has been the down fall of true bible spirituality for six thousand years. It has been demonstrated again and again that this theory will always lead to apostacy.

It allows leaders to manipulate members and intimidate their spirituality by threats of damnation if you oppose “the church”.

God has always allowed “the church” to go down, down, down, until it was so obvious that any honest spiritually minded individual could not, and would not be deceived by such a declaration.

If “the church” is salvaged, it will only be when enough members realize the truth of the matter and demand accountability of themselves individually, and church leaders corporately. It would most likely cause the final shaking and bring on the “terrible ordeal” EGW predicted would take place before the end.

We need to pray it will come, and even more importantly, pray we will be ready for it. And don’t expect justice and honesty to be used by those who oppose the truth in the end. You will be mis-represented and maligned if and when you stand for God’s truth.

Bill Sorensen

Strumming the Attached Strings
Did you say 70 years ago you attended this institution? Well, it was only 50 for me. None the less, I assume more than a few consider us “old and gray and in the way”, what do you think?

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.