Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by Bill Sorensen.
David Read said…..
“But there was nothing wrong with what Dan Jackson preached at La Sierra the other day. It was biblical truth, and truth that had been denied by an influential local theologian. He deserves praise for that sermon, not nitpicking.”
I agree, David, that we should applaud truth and those who advocate it. Maybe I have been at this too long…..
My observation of modern Adventism, maybe like Jim, is that for the last 40 years all we hear about is that no one has to keep the law to be saved, all we have to do is have faith in Christ.
While there is a biblical sense in which we do not keep the law to be saved, there is also a biblical sense in which we do.
To harp incessantly that we are saved by “faith alone” and not by works of the law, without a qualified biblical explanation of how we are justified by obedience to the law can only lead to the conclusion there is no biblical context in which we are justified by the law.
So, while I agree and believe in the vicarious substitionary atonement whereby Jesus had paid our debt, and bore the wrath of God in our behalf and now stands in the presense of God as our Substitute, Representative, and Surety, this will only be applied in the end to those who not on “Believe” this truth, but repent, and obey the law of God.
In the final judgment, the decision of whether you will be saved or not, is based on your Christian experience of obedience.
No one can “see” your faith, and God does not appeal to your faith as the evidence. While some liberals do embrace the MIT, the vast majority acknowledge the vicarious atonement and use it to undermine the human factor in salvation.
So, let me say this, the word “salvation” as used in the bible is far more comprehensive than is implied even in modern Adventism.
Today, people would throw their hands up in horror if anyone stated that you save yourself. But you do. The cross is worthless unless you respond in the way God has commanded and God can and will “force” anyone to it.
So, Dan Jackson can preach “the truth” in a limited way, just as the MIT peope do.
In the end, we are “saved” by the moral influence of the cross, just as much as by its value of a vicarious atonement.
EGW has well said….
Today the truths of Scripture are to be brought before the great men of the world in order that they may choose between obedience to God’s law and allegiance to the prince of evil. God sets everlasting truth before them–truth that will make them wise unto salvation, but He does not force them to accept it. If they turn from it, He leaves them to themselves, to be filled with the fruit of their own doings. {AA 241.2}
And this….
“It is Satan’s studied effort to divert minds from the hope of salvation through faith in Christ and obedience to the law of God.” Ibid 388
She makes many such comments that you won’t find in Adventist literature. We had a whole quarters lessons and this concept with a bible explanation is conspicuous by its absence.
The above quote is taken from EGW’s comments on the Apostacy in Galatia in Acts of the Apostles. And in this chapter, not once does she suggest that the issue was the moral law, but only and solely the ceremonial law. Why is that do you think?
Simply because the issue in Galatians was not the moral law as our bible lessons endeavored to convey. And this is no minor issue, it is the heart and soul of arguments made by Apostate Protestant denominations.
They also agree that it is the moral law, and if so, the law has been negated by the gospel and no other conclusion is possible.
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.
