“…..but our Christian duty, to protect and promote Truth, demands …

Comment on LSU Board says ‘we apologize’ by Bill Sorensen.

“…..but our Christian duty, to protect and promote Truth, demands we do more.”

Thank you

This is correct. And sometimes restoration is by way of punishment. Professor Kent needs to consider this reality when he said…..

“On a final point, God is much more interested in restorative than retributive (punitive) actions.”

None the less, I doubt much will be done in the final end of all this.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
Professor Kent said…..

“I am continually saddened by how faithful SDAs speak of and treat their leadership–God’s appointed shephards of the flock.”

Are you suggesting that all leaders are “God’s appointed shephards of the flock.”?

I personally doubt this idea. And I am not suggesting that none are being used of God. But this sweeping endorsement doesn’t seem to fit the reality.

After many decades of faulty leadership in many areas, it would seem inevitable that the credibility gap would widen more and more and polarization would be the result. When the church opted for pluralism after the Dr. Ford fiasco, we could only agree with Solomon, “The curse causeless shall not come.”

The devil uses time to his best advantage, and modern Adventism is the product of what happens repeatedly in history. Given enough time, Satan will corrupt everything God ordains to advance God’s kingdom. Satan then uses this instrumentality for his own purpose and kingdom after he has infiltrated the church and undermined its mission and message.

So EGW has rightly said, “Two parties will be developed.” Exactly how to deal with all the issues is not so easily discerned. None the less, we better realize that all is not well and the “peace and safety” message is bogus.

Loyalty to “the church” has often been misunderstood as “loyalty to Christ” and the results have always been the same. The church takes the place of Christ and becomes the antichrist in this world. Adventism is not beyond this possibility.

Bill Sorensen

LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
Professor Kent says:
March 15, 2011 Bill,

In what forum did Ms. White make those statements, and were names included? Why were names consistently removed from her publications, including the compilation of Testimonies?

Pardon my curiosity.

Professor of Christ

Obviously, she did not “always” state names in public. But she often did. And even Paul publically rebuked Peter. Our final purpose is to be redemptive in all we do. But we need not patronize blatant error and those who continue to advocate it.

Modern Adventism is becoming a real “sissy” religion. No personal accountability by leaders of themselves individually, or corporately.

Everyone hide behind the curtain of obscurity and avoid detection and always be sure to “cover” for the other guy.

But let me add. Those who refuse to discipline evil, will surely eventually discipline righteousness. You can count on it.

Bill Sorensen

LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
Eddie says:
March 15, 2011 “Ron Stone M.D., do you seriously believe that publicly criticizing leaders by name is going to help solve the problem? Do you believe it is God’s mission for your life to publicly criticize church leadership? When one of your patients fails to lose weight, do you go online to publicly goad the patient?”

I can’t believe the parallels people use on this forum to equate situations that are vastly different. As for “publicly” exposing individuals, if these individuals are “public” figures, then the answer in some cases is absolutely and positively “yes”. LSU is not a private matter but a public matter that pretains to every church member.

EGW “publicly” exposed more than a few in certain situations. She said to Kellogg, “I would help you if I could.” She said, “Don’t send your children to Battle Creek.”

Leaders who do “public” things should be exposed to the public. Just like any politician. Especially when it has been going on and on with no effort being made to resolve the situation.

A strange sense of reasoning seems to control and guide some people.

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.