Holly, I would make this further comment. A statement may …

Comment on The Origin of the Sabbath and the 7-Day Week by Bill Sorensen.

Holly, I would make this further comment. A statement may be coherent even if some would consider it irrational.

For instance……

I could say that by waving my arms rapidly, I can fly.

That statement is coherent, even if it is less than rational.

Those who deny the biblical account of creation claim its declarations are not coherent. Meaning, it can not be understood.

So, they not only claim the creation account is irrational, (because science will not support its claims), they also claim it is not coherent.

In which case, they claim we do not even know what it is saying. Obviously, so they can claim they really believe the bible, and since we don’t even what it is saying, we can not “judge” whether what they claim is true or not.

But we can “judge” because we do know what the bible is saying, and it is clear and coherent.

So, as I said, we could wish they would “man up” and admit all the double talk and simply say, they don’t agree with the biblical account.

Yet this man has considerable influence and the A-today ministry is allowed to have a booth at the GC sessions. So, we must conclude that our church leaders consider A-today a viable SDA ministry that represents the SDA church. Along with Spectrum and all other ministries allowed and endorsed by our church at the GC sessions.

Or, we could ask, “Is the SDA church nothing more than a clearing house for every Tom, Dick and Harry’s theology and we have no definable identity to defend and preserve?”

I think this is probably the case and they would argue that just because different ministries are “allowed” at the GC sessions, does not mean they are endorsed by the church.

But it is still duplicity and apostacy, no matter how they explain it. I still hope and pray that God has a “man with the dirt brush” represented in William Miller’s dream. If not, we are surely doomed as a church. We can hope that Educate Truth is part of the “dirt brush” and we need many more with equal convictions who will continue to demand accountability.

I am tired of the “get in, sit down, shut up and hang on” philosophy being sold all in the name of “unity at all cost.”

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

The Origin of the Sabbath and the 7-Day Week
Over on Adventist Today, David Hamstra stated…..

“For me it boils down to one issue: Spiritual gifts come with the authority to use them. If a woman has been equipped by the Holy Spirit for pastoral ministry, the church is poorer for not recognizing this…..”

In other words, spiritual manifestations carry their own authority and we need not appeal to the bible to test their validity.

I consider his statement to be made more in ignorance than rebellion. He thinks he is very “spiritual” by what he has stated to be the test. So, “Who could oppose or attack the work of the Holy Spirit?”

I would guess he has no clue that his argument is in perfect harmony with Rome.
Spiritual manifestations as the test of validity, leads to a “spirit ethic” instead of the bible.

So, if a “healing” takes place, how dare we challenge this miracle that for many would be evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit?

And if a person dresses like a heathen, sings like a heathen, and impresses the church with spiritual manifestations and a charasmatic personality, they must surely be “born again.” And of course, they bring like minded people into the church, so, the church growth must necessarily be “proof” and evidence of a growing spirituality.

Never was there a more fatal deception than to evaluate spirituality by success and numbers. Any sign of a “blessing” is ipso facto, the blessing of God according to this formula. And so the bible is set aside for spiritual delusions.

Hopefully, we can see now how the Sabbath was set aside for Sunday sacredness. And to this day, The Catholic church will affirm all their decisions were validated by the affirmation of the Holy Spirit who helped them make their infallible decisions. After all, the Holy Spirit decided, and “the church” simply carried out the will of the Spirit.

But some of us realize that the will of the Spirit is always subject to the word. And thus, their “spirit” was an unholy spirit and not the Spirit of God.

Bill Sorensen


The Origin of the Sabbath and the 7-Day Week
Holly said…..

” However, we have very few in our SDA leadership who have the backbone to stand up for God’s Truth, especially out here in California!”

It can be very frustrating, Holly. Try to place things of today in a parallel to the rebellion in heaven and you may find some peace inspite of the situation.

God was in control in heaven, yet He let Lucifer attack Him and His kingdom, and His Son, for what EGW calls a “long time.”

At least some of the angels must have seen the picture clearly. Yet, for the sake of all, God let it continue. When God drops the hammer, it is all over. Until then, we don’t want to be like Judas who thought he could “force” the hand of God and make Him act in accordance with Judas’s understanding of the situation.

This does not mean we do nothing. But a radical move at the wrong time can be fatal to ourselves as well as others.

If you read some of the liberal forms like Spectrum and A-today, you know they are elated to have a man like Dan Jackson to carry the ball for their agenda.

Unless God takes a postive and direct hand in the present situation, the church will surely split. And when it does, we want to be on the right side. Unlike heaven, we will probably be a minority if we stand fast for truth.

How to use your influence best for the cause of truth, only you and God can determine. And I believe in protesting again and again if and when the time is right.

“Point after point of truth should be investigated, for there is no limitation to the truth of God, and in its study a most lively interest should be felt by both teachers and pupils, that they may know what God hath said. For years the voice of God has been saying to us, “Agitate, agitate, agitate.” Study every point of truth, that you may know for yourselves what is truth in distinction from error. Let students search for themselves, that they may know the deep things of God. Let this work be done in the Spirit of Christ. Put no restriction upon the students. {SSW, April 1, 1892 par. 4}
In searching the Scriptures there is need of great humility of mind and contrition of heart, of seeking earnestly unto God. Those who come in a lowly spirit, seeking for truth, will be aided in their search by the angels of God. {SSW, April 1, 1892 par. 5}
The Lord will raise up men to bear the message of truth to the world and to his people. If those in responsible positions do not move onward in the opening providences of God, bearing an appropriate message for this time, the words of warning will be given to others who will be faithful to their trust. Even youthful Christians will be chosen to “cry aloud and spare not.” {SSW, April 1, 1892 par.

As the liberals defend the ordination of women, they hold one main argument. “Spiritual manifestations”.

So, if a woman demonstrates some spiritual gift of speaking, teaching, or communicating, they are ipso facto qualified to be elders, pastors and/or church leaders in any position.

Thus, the bible is set aside for a “spirit ethic” that emulates Rome. The last fortress of “the bible only” has been abandon for spiritual delusions. God raised up Adventism to be the last defender of the bible and its final message. If the devil can undermine bible Adventism, and cause the church to abandon its biblical confession of faith, and opt for a “spirit ethic” instead of clear biblical exhortations, then Satan gains a great victory.

I am cautiously hopeful with some reservations, that it will yet fulfill its mission and comission.

We may well see more disappointments, but in the end, truth will surely triumph.

Bill Sorensen


The Origin of the Sabbath and the 7-Day Week
Holly asked…..

“Shouldn’t we actually know the real names of those that are undermining our SDA Church? Especially if they claim to be members of our Church?”

Well, Holly, evidently EGW thought so. She named anyone who she thought was doing just that. Namely, Kellogg, and a host of others and made this comment….

” A Time To Protest–When there are men in the church who love riches more than righteousness, and who stand ready to take advantage of their fellow-men by unjust dealings, shall we make no protest? And when men standing in the position of leaders and teachers work under the power of spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we keep silent, for fear of injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled? Satan will use every advantage that he can obtain to cause souls to become clouded and perplexed in regard to the work of the church, in regard to the word of God, and in regard to the words of warning which He has given through the testimonies of His Spirit, to guard His little flock from the subtleties of the enemy.–Manuscript 72, 1904, p. 6. {ChL 62.1}”

I think it is true, especially when they keep trumpeting their false ideas all over the church community for years.

Graham Maxwell was one. But was an “untouchable” because he was “in” and no one dare link him with his apostate teaching. Dr. Jennings is invited to different churches to speak, and teaches the same thing. The Moral Influence Theory.

Some did challenge Bacchiocchi when he questioned the 1260 yrs prophecy. But he was more of an “outsider” from the statis quo.

But if you are “in”, you are an “untouchable” and no one dare challenge or question what you say or teach.

And it is more than an obvious certainty that our trained ministers are told to never touch any controversial subject, doctrine or theology especially within their individual churches.

So, they don’t preach on dress, jewelry, music, women’s ordination, or other sensitive subjects. Rule of thumb, “Don’t divide your church no matter what.”

EGW said this…..

“Truth is more precious than all besides. Notwithstanding the agencies combined against the truth, a large number take their stand upon the Lord’s side.” {GC88 612.2}

But today we have a new focus, “Unity is more important than truth, and we will do anything and everything to maintain unity at all cost, even if we have to ignore truth and condon error.”

The issues at LSU are a classic illustration of this reality.

Bill Sorensen


Recent Comments by Bill Sorensen

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” That’s what I’ve been saying (and what Morris Venden and MacCarty have been saying)”

Well, I did not do a complete search on all the MacCarty says or believes. But in the case of Venden, I did do such a study and Venden had a doctrine of “sanctification by faith alone” that was totally outside the bible teaching.

“Faith alone” by definition means we play no part in it. If so, it is not “faith alone”. But Venden’s view of sanctification was definitely “faith alone” and we play no part in it but believe. At any rate, there is more confusion than bible definition in his definition of sanctification, and I think this applies to MacCarty as well. Like I said, I read his book a couple years ago and it was circular with no real definition of what he meant.

But basically, he equated the old covenant with legalism which is bogus. We agree a misapplication of the old covenant is not the same thing as a clear understanding of the old covenant and its purpose. So let’s not take a misapplication of the old covenant, and then claim this is the old covenant.

As you have defended the Sabbath against a misapplication of the new covenant and not called it the new covenant we must do the same with the old covenant. Our conclusion should be that a misapplication of any truth does not equate to the truth that is being misapplied. The confusion continues on many levels in the SDA community today.

Your defense of creation against the liberal agenda is a classic illustration of how the liberal agenda misapplies the new covenant on every level from false teaching to simply denying the bible outright. And all this from a misapplication of the new covenant that creates a false “spirit ethic” that takes the place of the bible and the ten commandments.

I appreciate the dialogue. Some may see the point eventually and some never will. Since we don’t know who’s who in this context, we leave it up to God to sort out the various issues and determine who “gets it” and who don’t.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

I never said any such thing or even suggested it. Did you even read what I wrote. If so, you decided to impute to me something I never said or suggested. Let’s at least try to be objective in our evaluation of what the other person said.

I said the Holy Spirit liberates the will and by the power of the Holy Spirit, we can choose to believe, repent and obey. How then is this your false claim that I think “You honestly think that you can simply choose to do good through your own willpower.”

You rightly point out that without the Holy Spirit, we have no way to know God’s will, let alone do it. And yes, Jesus “puts enmity between sinful beings and the kingdom of Satan.”

But “putting the enmity by Christ” will save no one until and unless they choose to respond in the God ordained way He has stated in the bible. Each individual must choose to first accept the atonement, then repent, and then obey the law. Thus, the Holy Spirit empowers the will, but it is the sinner who must respond. And this is not “doing it on their own” as you seem to imply. Jesus said, “Without me, you can do nothing.” But as Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ which stengthenth me.”

Paul states what he can do by the power of God. And it is not God doing the believing, or repenting or obeying. It is Paul. EGW makes this very clear to refute the mystics who try to claim that Jesus or the Holy Spirit gets in them and does the willing and doing.

” While these youth were working out their own salvation, God was working in them to will and to do of his good pleasure. Here are revealed the conditions of success. To make God’s grace our own, we must act our part. The Lord does not propose to perform for us either the willing or the doing. His grace is given to work in us to will and to do, but never as a substitute for our effort. Our souls are to be aroused to co-operate. The Holy Spirit works in us, that we may work out our own salvation. This is the practical lesson the Holy Spirit is striving to teach us. “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR
August 20, 1903
Lessons From the Life of Daniel—9
This concerning Daniel and his friends.

She refutes the modern day mysticism that would destroy the will of man and interpret “Christ in you, the hope of glory” totally outside the biblical context.

But “Christ in you, the hope of glory” is the same thing reflected in the words of Paul, “For me to live is Christ.” Meaning, I love Jesus so much my whole life is dedicated to His glory and will.

Our “own works” that she refers to, are those people do outside a biblical relationship with Christ. It does not refer to the works of a true believer who conforms his life to emulate the life of Christ. Where does Skip MacCarty point out this difference?

Much, if not most of modern spirituality in Adventism is pure mysticism that convolutes the identity of Christ and the believer to the point the believer has no identity. It was highly stimulated by Morris Venden who tried to show that “faith alone” applies equally to sanctification as it does to justification. It was and is totally bogus. But it has infiltrated the church by him and others to the point that mysticism is rapidly becoming the major spirituality of the church.

You may mean well, Sean. But like so many others, you don’t take the time to carefully consider the implications of what you say nor explain it is a clear definitive way so that it fits the bible context. If the true bible position on sanctification is clearly presented, then it is obvious we “save ourselves” by the way we respond to the word of God. In which case, the law is salvational, but only in the biblical context. Simply put, we are “saved” by doing what God says and this includes faith in the atonement.

Many are so “hell bent” to avoid what they think is legalism, they wrest the scriptures to their own destruction and not only deceive themselves, but others who do not carefully consider the implications of the conclusion of their false idea and theory.

But to claim that those who reject your view think they can “do it on their own” is a false representation that prejudices others who don’t carefully follow the conversation. Having said all this, I am more than willing for anyone to explain and qualify and re-qualify as many times as necessary to make it very clear what they mean by what they say.

So I agree, sanctification is by faith, but not by “faith alone” in the same context that justification is by faith alone. Without a clear explanation, all we have is ongoing confusion on sin and salvation and the divine factor vs. the human factor in a full and complete view of what the bible teaches about the issues.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
“We “work out our own salvation” by simply opening to the door the Spirit of God. That’s our only “work” to do here. That’s the only “work” we can do. The rest is beyond human power.”

Your whole theory is pure mysticism as the rest of your explanation affirms. The purpose of sanctification on the part of God is to liberate the human will for self government. It is the believing sinner who chooses to have faith and repent, and obey the law of God.

Neither is it “automatic” but by careful evaluation of the will of God and the implications of the outcome if we chose not to accept the free offer. You undermine and in the end, destroy the human factor in salvation and the moral accountability of man.

So when we are confronted by the gospel, we must choose to believe, choose to repent and choose to obey. God will not do this for us. Neither will the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the “holy motive” as He inspires and empowers us to “save ourselves” by responding to the word of God exactly as it is stated in the bible.

Much of the SDA church has opted for some mystical non-biblical explanation of the plan of salvation that has no affinity to the true teaching of the bible.

So sanctification is not “just give yourself to Jesus and He will do the rest.”

Basically, you convolute the divine factor and human factor in such a way that you end up negating the human factor altogether.

I doubt anything I would share with you would challenge your thinking, since in the past you have rejected other clear biblical concepts on sin and salvation like the doctrine of original sin. At any rate, if you post my response, perhaps one of your readers will actually see the point and consider the implications of our dialogue.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Yes, as EGW and the bible affirm, we are justified by obedience to the moral law. Not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. And this is what the Investigative judgment is all about. The word “justification” in the bible has a more comprehensive meaning than people perceive today. Like the word “atonement” and “salvation” the word “justification” has been limited to a non-biblical meaning and application that foreign to the bible and the full meaning the bible gives to these words.

And yes, we save ourselves by the way we respond to the word of God. No, we don’t save ourselves by meriting heaven and earning the favor of God. “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” Jesus

This is too plain to be misunderstood except by those who convolute the bible to support their false doctrine. No one is justified by “faith alone” except the special context used by the Reformation to oppose Rome when Rome taught legal merit in the believer’s response to the conditions for salvation.

“Faith alone” in this context was “Christ alone” who stands in the presence of God in our behalf as the meritorious cause of salvation and eternal life. This is not sanctification nor is sanctification “by faith alone” as some faulty teachers try to present and defend. Sanctification is always by faith and works on the part of the believer as we “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.”

And justification by faith in the bible, is the believer’s faith in Christ, not Christ’s faith in the believer. This subject is so confused and warped by SDA scholars it has no affinity to bible teaching and doctrine. So it is the believer’s faith in Christ that justifies. This is the whole theme of Paul and the new testament emphasis and message.
Bill Sorensen


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
” “All that the Lord has said, we will do.” (Exodus 19:8).”

That’s right Sean. And the Lord said, “The people have well spoken there commitment.” But then added, “Oh that there was such an heart in them to do it.”

The issue was proper motivation based on a clear understanding of sin and all that this implies. God never chided them for their statement of faith but their lack of understanding the sinful human heart.

How is that any different than today in the new covenant era? How many are baptized making the same valid commitment and confession of faith only to find the difficulty of living out the Christian experience.

Neither will Jesus get into anybody and obey the law for them. The motivation will ratchet up as our understanding is increased and the love of God that motivates works in a more dynamic way with the increased knowledge.

But many assume the old covenant was a system of legalism and then contrast the new covenant as a true system of faith. This is bogus. True believers in the old covenant era trusted in Christ. These are the old covenant experience people and not Cain or anyone else in that era who either refused the offer God provided or convoluted it. So those who imply that the old covenant was in and of itself a system of legalism like MacCarty does, have a false idea of old and new covenant that is simply not biblical. And then they try to explain how in the new covenant God writes the law on our heart and not in stone.

God wrote His law on the heart of Abel, Noah, Abraham and every true believer in the old covenant era as Jesus “put enmity between Satan and man” by a revelation of the love of God in His willingness to make atonement for fallen man. The new covenant era simply means God will finish writing His law on the heart of every true believer and this is not some “new” covenant different than the old.

Only in the sense that the atonement promised in the past is now a reality in the present. And this ratchets up the motivation in harmony with the life of Jesus more fully revealed by way of the new covenant writers. It is false doctrine to present the idea that no one had the law “written on their heart” during the old covenant era. Did you ever read the words of David in the Psalms, “Create in me a new heart, and renew a right spirit within me.”?

This is not the new covenant in the old covenant era. There is no “new covenant believer” in the old covenant era. This is impossible. The new covenant is after the fact of the atonement and is based on the time element of the two covenants. The first covenant (old covenant) is based on a future event. The new covenant is based on a past event. This is the whole spirituality of Paul and repeated and affirmed in the book of Hebrews. What God had promised during the old covenant era, He has done.

There is certainly an affinity in both covenants as both are based on Jesus and His sacrifice. Everyone in heaven will have trusted in the atonement of the cross whether it was before Jesus made the atonement or after He made the atonement. Again, I say it is bogus to claim Cain represents an old covenant experience and Abel a new covenant experience. And it is equally false to claim anyone who is a legalist in the new covenant era is an old covenant experience. Namely this, the old covenant is not legalism and never was. Just because people corrupt the old covenant does not equate to claiming they were legalists by virtue of being in the old covenant era.

This is MacCarty’s error and he speaks for more than a few SDA scholars who are as confused as he is. God made no legal covenant with anyone with the exception of His Son. God’s covenant with all is based on the moral law and this is not legalism unless, like the Catholic church, you think you can merit heaven by keeping the moral law.

The moral law, like I said, is a family law and those who refuse to enter into this moral covenant to “obey and live” will never be in heaven. Children in a loving home don’t obey their parents to merit and earn the favor of their parents or earn a place in the family. None the less, they are in covenant relationship with their parents and if they rebel enough, can be disinherited, just like Adam and Eve who rebelled against the family law.

Adam and Eve in a state of sinlessness were not meriting the favor of God. Nor do the sinless angels merit the favor of God. Nor do the redeemed in heaven merit the favor of God. None the less, all are under obligation to obey the family law of God or forfeit eternal life like Adam and Eve in the garden. Love for God never releases anyone from the moral obligation to do God’s will and submit to His authority. This issue is so intense even in the SDA church that many now assume if you love God you have no obligation to obey and that you simply do God’s will because “you want to, not because you have to.” This is bogus and the lie of Satan that he advocated in heaven. We better get it straight and if not, “Spiritualism is at the door deluding the whole world.”
Bill Sorensen