So you think EGW was condecending to those who advocated …

Comment on LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued by Bill Sorensen.

So you think EGW was condecending to those who advocated false teaching and were corrupting the church?

She and James White were close friends with Dr. Kellogg. She never let her regard for him sway her judgment in exposing his false teaching. And the same applies to Canright.

So she said….

” 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}

EGW was a woman doing a man’s job. And under the circumstances, she did a great job in light of the situations she had to deal with.

She was no “sissy” when it came to her duty to expose and oppose error. I admire her greatly because of the difficulty she had to encounter, partly because she was a woman, and partly because of her poor education. In the end, God qualified her to do the work she did, because men refused to accept His call.

It is almost as if God said, “I’ll show you, I can accomplish my goal with the weakest of the weak”, because she was willing to be used inspite of the problems she would obviously encounter.

And if by God’s grace I should be allowed into heaven, I hope to find Ms White and tell her how much I appreciated her testimonies and that I understand, at least on some level, what she must have gone through in her service for Jesus.

None the less, I am very content and have no reason to complain because of my Christian commitment. As she said to Fitch and Stockman when they asked her in heaven about her trials, “Praise the Lord, heaven is cheap enough.”

All I am saying is this, we have little or no comprehension of what she suffered and I am spiritually upset by those liberal spirits who attack her continually and work earnestly to undermine her ministry and mission.

Thank God for EGW.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
George said……

“I verbalized my opinion. This is what I think.
I didn’t attack anyone personally who thinks different than me. Making personal attacks is just ignorance and inability to stay on the higher sphere of discussing just ideas. I prefer discussing ideas than people – especially those I don’t even know.”

While there is an element of truth to what George is contending for, in one sense, it can simply be a “cop out”.

What we say and what we believe is who and what we are. To pretend we are not what we say and believe is really quite silly.

Even some of our evangelism is missing the point when they will continually repeat to the people, “We are not opposing the members of any organization, just the organization itself.”

So in attacking the Catholic church, we assume we can avoid “insulting” those who firmly believe in this system by trying to seperate people from what they believe as defining who they really are.

In the end, it is a superficial seperation that simply will not fly to any rational thinking person.

I am a SDA and who I am is defined by what I believe and say. I am not something different from my confession of faith. So, to insult my belief system, is to insult me.

We need not apologize for “attacking” what people believe, even if it is who they are. We do need to be very gracious and tactful in the way we point out why someone’s belief system is wrong in our own evaluation. And if we use the bible, the bible will do the job for us in the end. (That is, if we are using the scripture according to its own meaning.)

Then if there is not agreement. We can only go on our way and allow “the truth” to speak for itself.

Still and all, we are “attacking” people when we point out what we believe is their faulty belief system.

Bill Sorensen

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Well, Lydian, “Adventist Kid” represents the results of modern education. The liberal agenda.

We were taught the SDA heritage and its historic spirituality. And yes, we were also to some degree rebellious, but none the less, we “knew” the truth as advocated by the church and found in the bible.

Today, doubt, skepticism, and unbelief are often the norm in SDA education. Especially in the higher schools of learning.

EGW is often undermined along with the bible itself. Not only that, few really study either one. So our young people and even our church members are “spoon fed” what to believe.

And far too often, they believe it, too. And why is this happening? Because people are persuaded “the leaders” will tell us what to do and what to believe and we should never challenge their decisions or what they teach. And if you do, you are labeled some kind of rebel and they will undermine your influence in the church. Especially if you “press the battle to the gate.”

Shane and Sean could oppose some things and it would be OK. But if they “make waves”, look out. And people like “Adventist Kid” would say, “get in, sit down, shut up, and hang on.” “The ‘leaders’ will handle the problem.”

So, Lydian, it is a “God size problem” and how it will eventually play out in the church itself, we don’t know. We do know the basic historic message God gave our pioneers will triumph and those who advocate it and act in harmony with it will “go through to the end.”

As EGW said….

“Today, Sunday, I have not attended meeting, but have had to visit considerably. I am grateful to God for the strength and freedom and power of His spirit in bearing my testimony, although it has made the least impression upon many minds than at any period before in my history. Satan has seemed to have power to hinder my work in a wonderful degree, but I tremble to think what would have been in this meeting if we had not been here. God would have worked in some way to prevent this spirit brought to the meeting, having a controlling power. But we are not the least discouraged. We trust in the Lord God of Israel. The truth will triumph and we
mean to triumph with it.” {3SM 178.3}

“The church” is not always equated with “the truth”. But in the end, we can know “the truth” will eventually create “the church”.

“The deputies had admonished the councillors to continue in the church, out of which, they declared, there was no salvation. Zwingle responded: “Let not this accusation move you. The foundation of the church is the same Rock, the same Christ, that gave Peter his name because he confessed him faithfully. In every nation whoever believes with all his heart in the Lord Jesus is accepted of God. Here, truly, is the church, out of which no one can be saved.” As a result of the conference, one of the bishop’s deputies accepted the reformed faith.” {GC88 181.1}

It may be possible, even likely, that each of us will have to oppose “the church” as a corporate structure before the end. And even more likely that “the church” will get smaller before it accomplishes its task. “The church” we all want to be sure that we are members of is the one in heaven that all the loyal angels belong to. And when “the church” on earth reflects “the church” in heaven, Jesus will come and take us home. Rev. 14:1-5

Keep the faith,

Bill Sorensen

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Jim said…..

“Please, people–fellow church members–you’re a little better than that, aren’t you? Shouldn’t the rest of us be more about our Father’s business, and leave those entrusted with authority in this matter to deal with it, AS THEY ALREADY HAVE??”

Jim, it seems you fail to see reality in this situation as well as others in the church.

It would have been nice if our leaders had dealt with this issue years ago. They didn’t, and wouldn’t, if some people like Shane and Sean did not “force” them by way of public opinion.

Just like the “tea party” in civil politics has acted. Apparently leadership in the secular world has a reflection in much of the religious world as well.

To assume lay members of the church have no responsiblity to demand accountability of their leaders seems less than “Christian” in my opinion.

The leaders are accountable to the members and open disclosure is how God’s government works in heaven and should work on the same principle here on earth.

God is no “elitist” who demands of His created beings something He will not do Himself. The whole controversy between Christ and Satan is concerning this very issue.

So Galatians 4:4 gives us God’s answer to the charges of Satan. “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,……”

God subjects Himself to His own law that we might see that He not only rules, but serves humanity with a just and true purpose.

Yes, we have a right to demand accountability and open disclosure of what our leaders do, and then ask why and how they have made their decisions.

Especially in situations like LSU.

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