Comment on Two Conflicting Arguments in Defense of La Sierra University by Bill Sorensen.
“I am still of the opinion that any church member that does not accept all 28 of our doctrines should by all means find themselves another church. But we know that Satan’s way is to attack truth from within.”
We have a little problem, Steve. The 28 are simply a suggestion of what the majority of SDA’s believe by concensus. And therefore, there is a disclaimer at the beginning that states the positions are not “offical” doctrines of the SDA church.
We have embraced and endorsed Pluralism for so long, we have rendered ourselves impotent to discipline anyone on any subject. This is what happens when you have a “false gospel” endorsed and embraced. And the liberal element has more than substancial control of the church, and apparently we have no ability to do anything about it. Thus, the incesent “bickering” that can not resolve the problem because no one can do anything about it.
Oh yes, we can have meeting after meeting year after year, but it is at present an exercise in futility. There has been no discipline of LSU nor of the Unions that flagrantly ignored the General Conference about WO issue. And now hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent uselessly in the next two years to tell us they can not come to any substancial conclusion. Pluralism will reign, apparently and no problem will be resolved.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen Also Commented
Two Conflicting Arguments in Defense of La Sierra University
Richard, some of us are not allowed to post on Spectrum. I am glad it was posted here for evaluation. It also shows that at least some on that forum recognize the duplicity many use to oppose the truth.
Two Conflicting Arguments in Defense of La Sierra University
There are several issues being discussed by Sean on this forum. I don’t always agree with the way he defends creation, even though we agree on the creation issue.
But one of the main issues is church authority. So the question is this, “Does the church have a right to define its understanding and teaching of the bible, and require those who work for the church to support it?”
The liberals say ,”NO”. For obvious reasons.
They already know that LSU does not support the SDA church teaching on origins. So to defend their duplicity, they claim the church must tolerate views that oppose the church for the sake of academic freedom.
Quit frankly, this is simply liberal “hogwash” and everybody knows it. But they assume if the can “blowhard” their view over and over they may actually persuade someone, and in the meantime, keep the church from acting in a responsible way to discipline those elements that attack the church and its understanding of creation.
Religious liberty does not mean a church can not define its doctrine and teaching and demand accountability to adhere to its declarations of doctrine. Another inane view by the liberals who claim religious liberty means all are free to teach anything they want, even if it opposes church doctrine.
We begin to wonder if there is a sane human being left on the earth. Common sense is out the window as liberals use any and every ridiculous argument to advance their agenda. As a side note, some of you probably have heard the boy scouts are now planning to allow gay leaders in their organization. What parent would allow their child to join such an organization? More than a few, I would suspect. This only shows the insanity that has griped America on every level. And our church is not far behind.
Two Conflicting Arguments in Defense of La Sierra University
The article shows the “double talk” people use to defend LSU. Like secular politicians who ask simular questions and work continually and consistently to obsure even the obvious.
Apparently, they are not real proud of what they believe or perhaps, don’t even know as in the case of how many deal with the bible teachings.
So, “if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your baloney.”
It seems to apply more and more on every level of communication on every subject from religion to politics, business ….etc. The whole world is “Babylon”. Not just religion and spiritual matters.
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.
