Bob, I suspect “the church” is beyond recovery because false …

Comment on LSU Responds to Issues Regarding Dr. Diaz and WASC by Bill Sorensen.

Bob, I suspect “the church” is beyond recovery because false doctrine is embraced. Only, and if the false doctrine is exposed and rejected, can we expect any viable action in harmony with the situation.

Obviously, the church is flying apart, even though most people don’t want to admit it and hope through some political agenda they can hold it together and maintain some semblance of sanctified unity. I believe the message of bible Adventism has been abandon and thus its mission has been re-defined.

No one need to abandon the law completely to have it be antinomianism. And no one need abandon the gospel completely to be a legalist. Just pervert law and gospel enough to convolute both and the result suits Satan’s agenda.

I personally still believe God can and will eventually create the final Christian community by way of the bible. Adventism has played an important role in pointing out many truths and exposing errors. But modern Adventism has begun a march back to Rome on its on agenda and does not seem to have the will, nor the understanding to correct the problems. God does not “need” the SDA church to accomplish His goals anymore than He “needed” the Jewish nation for this purpose.

God is not shackled by human instrumentalities as unconditional means of grace to accomplish what He will eventually do. Yes, He has bound Himself to use humans to accomplish His purpose, but this not necessarily any “church” so that He is not free. In fact, this error on the part of men has actually kept God from doing what He will do in the end. It always dis-qualifies the means of grace and destroys human accountability in the process.

I personally doubt repentance is possible because of this false philosophy embraced by more than a few in the church today.

So, EGW has well said…..

” My soul is made very sad to see how quickly some who have had light and truth will accept the deceptions of Satan, and be charmed with a spurious holiness. When men turn away from the landmarks the Lord has established that we may understand our position as marked out in prophecy, they are going they know not whither. {2SM 393.1}
I question whether genuine rebellion is ever curable.”

I think what we have on many levels is just that, “genuine rebellion”. And I agree with her conclusion as well.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

LSU Responds to Issues Regarding Dr. Diaz and WASC
No one is “totally objective” Jeff. You know that and so do I. We can be relatively objective enough to come to some rational viable conclusion, can’t we?

You constantly “muddy” the waters by a lot of inane arguments when if you are “objective” you already know that LSU teaches evolution as a fact. Why don’t you simply [edit] admit it?

Liberals won’t [admit it]. Obscurity and evasion work best when you want to deny some reality. So, no, I did not do a detailed investigation of every issue. But I have read and heard more than enough to believe I can come to some rational and viable conclusion that LSU is in fact [promoting] evolution and has done so for a number of years.

Are you denying this, Jeff, or not? Are you claiming LSU is not and has not [promoted] evolution either now or in the past? Where is your “evidence” to support this claim?


LSU Responds to Issues Regarding Dr. Diaz and WASC
Come on Professor Kent. We live in the information age. Everyone knows LSU teaches evolution. No amount of “smoke screen” by you or anyone else will cover up this reality. Why do you think Jay Galimore in his conference would not support people from his conference to LSU?

Why not “man up” and admit the truth of the matter and then deal with it. Sean and others have been researching this issue for years. Do you think they dreamed all this up? Or, do you suppose if you repeat your view long enough, it will somehow eventually become the truth?

Start with the obvious and then go from there. You sound like our liberal politicians who assume everyone is so ignorant they won’t know the difference. Or, more likely, in the end, people just don’t care. Most knowledgeable people know the liberals have control of the church and they plan to keep it that way. And maybe they will. Who knows?


LSU Responds to Issues Regarding Dr. Diaz and WASC
Professor Kent. My brother told me over 20 years ago they were teaching evolution at LSU. He knew people who affirmed it. Guess what? I believe him and all the present dialogue only confirms what hundreds of people know and have known for years. It is just now coming to a head.

And I am sure the “study committee” is very objective in their evaluation…..not.

So, as the saying goes, “You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time.”

Like I said, we live in the information age. With all that smoke, we can be sure there is a fire. By the way, I went to LSU in the early 60’s when it was only a college.


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.