Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by Bill Sorensen.
Re Wes’s Quote
“Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.”
Hi Wes
There is another very viable option. That the depiction of Jesus by third parties was not accurate. Did his ardent followers try to create a divine being out of a remarkable man?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken, this is exactly why you would be classed with the liberal element in the church.
If your suggestion has any validity at all, we must conclude the whole bible is subject to the same conclusion.
We could not possibly know if any of it is a reliable source of revelation concerning who God is, what He did, or who we are, or what we should do. It would all be pure speculation with no certainty.
If you have any real desire to know and/or understand the bible, it doesn’t seem apparent in any of your posts. My evaluation of what I have read of your posting is this,….. You are an agnostic and proud of it.
You flaunt the confession as if you considered it a sign of superior intellect. And then find refuge in the idea that if there is a “god”, he will surely approve you since you claim “civil righteousness” as you “help” and “love” your neighbor.
But you have a bible, and I know by your posting that you have read at least some of it. Since your confession is that you don’t know if it is right or wrong, and since you admit it may be right, shouldn’t you worry just a bit that if it is right, you may well be lost?
Do you think by claiming “I don’t know.” it will let you off the hook, as it were, if the bible is true?
You seem to find comfort and assurance in claiming you are an agnostic. But the bible tells us “Christ is the light that lighteth every man the cometh into the world.”
Apparently, you deny this statement and claim you have no such enlightenment. Now no one can know exactly for a fact what another person may know or not know. But Paul’s words may have some relevant meaning in your situation.
“Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”
This means you can tell me and everyone else that you have no “enlightenment” to make a viable decision one way or the other. And we can not say otherwise. But we do know in the end, according to the bible, everyone has had adequate knowledge to make a viable decision and if they are lost, it is their own fault and they will not be able to plead ignorance for their lost condition.
As the professor asked his class, “What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?” And one student answered, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
“Precisely” was the professors response.
So, Ken, your confession of “I don’t know” may well be coupled with “and I don’t care.” Or maybe more accurately, “I don’t want to know.”
And if you come on a Christian forum and comment, you should expect to be chided and exhorted and hopefully encouraged to consider that any “I don’t know” won’t necessarily “get you off the hook” when it comes to the final judgment. In such case, you better learn to know and find out before it is too late.
I suspect and hope that like myself, at least some are praying for you who have read your posts. In some cases I close my post with “keep the faith”. In your case, I can only say,
“Find the faith, and then keep it.”
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen Also Commented
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Mack said……
“Liberals aren’t condemning all to hell for disagreeing with them.”
Of course not, Mack. They hold the “Bully pulpit” and if you don’t like it, “Get out of town.”
They will do everything they can to destroy your influence in the church. And they don’t mind lying to accomplish their goals either.
And once they get their agenda in place, it is “sweep everything under the rug we don’t want any investigation and exposure.”
They would shut up Shane and Sean if they could. And now we hear not a word from David Asserick or Jay Galimore about the La Sierra situation.
Who do you think shut them up?
Oh yes, the liberals hold the “bully pulpit” and use it to their advantage. By the way, Shane and Sean allow you to post what you please as well as Ken and others who attack the bible and spread their unbelief all over cyber space.
Why is it Spectrum and A-today don’t allow me free posting on their forums? They allow anyone who attacks the SDA faith to post freely and even encourage such activity. Including a Catholic priest who attacks not only Adventism but basic Protestantism.
Liberals control not only the secular media and our political system, but religion in America in general and liberals control the SDA church as well.
The situation at LSU is typical and not some unusual situation in Adventism.
Shane and Sean have forced into the public arena their double dealing and duplicity for any and all to see.
Any objective observer can see who controls modern day Adventism. Who do you think “Forces” rock and roll music, jewelry, women elders and a dress agenda that emulates the heathen?
I don’t know a pastor in the denomination today with the spiritual stamina to stand up and demand accountability of his members for fear of losing his job.
So, as the saying goes, Mack. “I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.”
The devil has been working his way into the church for the last 40 years and he is not sitting on the back row. He is in the pulpit.
“The great issue so near at hand will weed out those whom God has not appointed and He will have a pure, true, sanctified ministry prepared for the latter rain.–3SM 385 (1886). {LDE 179.2}
Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan. . . . {LDE 179.3}”
Notice, she said, “many”. Not a “few”.
Church members don’t really believe it, so the leaders are pulling it off with little difficulty.
Don’t get me started, Mack. I’ve seen everything for decades. Thankfully, a few like Shane and Sean are now beginning to speak out publically. And, yes, some are beginning to wake up.
God will yet have a people who hold to the bible only and won’t be intimidated by the liberal agenda.
Bill Sorensen
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
“Martin held up the social conservative POV and Clifford the theological conservative POV.”
Well, I think Weber went through transition like we all do, Bob.
I doubt he holds the same theological views and philosophy he did 20 years ago. He was more conservative then. So, like I said, he was bought off for a few pieces of silver.
He never writes a view point in the paper where he is not attacking the traditional SDA church calling every conservative a “legalist”. In one article, he lamented that his poor old mother had to leave the SDA church and fellowship in a Lutherean church to find “love” and fellowship.
The people were so cold and non-loving, she had to go else where. All this to undermine historic Adventism and opt for his liberal theology. He incessantly and constantly pushes women elders in almost every issue.
Maybe you still know him and talk with him. He is not the Martin Weber of the past, and he would probably agree and be proud of it.
Bill Sorensen
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Bob, my concern is not so much with David Read as it is with the SDA church of today. David reflects modern Adventism and most people, even so called “conservative” Adventists can’t articulate the full scope of the bible doctrine and teaching on “justification”.
The concept of law and justification is far more comprehensive in the bible than the vicarious atonement.
The church has spent years in explaining how we are “not justified by the law”, and there is a biblical concept that supports this truth. Sad to say for the church, there is a biblical concept on how we are justified by the law, and our church today never discusses it or explains how it works.
Consequently, people don’t believe we are justified by the law in any context. And when you state that we are, you are accused of legalism.
For the most part, we have novices who define bible truth and have the influence and authority in modern Adventism.
David rightly said this in response to my statement…..
“”The bible doctrine of justification by works is conspicuous by its absence in the SDA church today.” Bill Sorensen
Bill, I repudiate such language in the strongest possible terms. There is no Bible doctrine of justification by works, so its absence from the SDA Church, or any other Christian Church, is not surprising. To speak of the “bible doctrine of justification by works” is to repudiate the Bible.
I just want to make clear to anyone reading this thread, Bill, that your faith is not my faith. I am not giving up the gospel just because you hold yourself out as a conservative,…….” David Read
David simply reflects what he has been taught. It is superficial theology at best, and heresy at worst.
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.
