Our bible class on Wed. night is reading through the …

Comment on NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science by Bill Sorensen.

Our bible class on Wed. night is reading through the Great Controversy. This weeks chapter is “A Warning Rejected”.

I don’t know a chapter more descriptive of the SDA church today than this one. It is always good to re-read this book occasionally. Especially from the middle onward. Read this chapter and see for yourself.

By the way, thanks, Bob, for those clear statements that especially apply to the church today. Not withstanding unbelievers who give massive affirmation to each other concerning their spirituality.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science

Both sides think they are right in the methods being used to deal with the problem. But we must all remember, just because we think we are right, does not make it so.

So, neither yourself and those who agree with you are necessarily right in your evaluation. Neither does it prove true for the other side.

One think we do know for certain, nothing was being done substancially to correct the problem until some people like Shane and Sean exposed the problem to the church community in general.

So, you are free to use any method you think will bring results. Some of us think the methods now being used here on this forum will have the best chance to see any substancial action to correct the problem.

And it may well be that the problem is now so intense, there is no method, period, that will bring any viable results in harmony with the traditional SDA position on creation. And this applies to several other fundamental SDA bible doctrines.

Bill Sorensen

NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science
“If LSU and/or the Adventist Church leadership cannot or will not provide this information to our church family at large, or act in a decided manner to address such problems, I will at least sound the warning to all who are willing to listen… to the very best of my ability (Ezekiel 33:6).”

Sean Pitman

I know that some don’t agree with you, Sean, on the method you have used to expose the issues publicly. But at least some of us are happy that you are at least doing something to make known publicly to anyone who wants to know, the issues concerning LSU.

It is interesting to see the total inconsistency of those who think the church should not discipline anyone who teaches contrary to the majority understanding of any doctrine. And not only teach contrary to it, but expect to continue to get paid to do so.

This idea is totally absurd and can only lead to chaos and complete confusion. While we have a major identity crisis in the church, such who support the progessive and liberal agenda want us to have no identity at all.

I believe the church will get a lot smaller before we eventually “finish the work” God has given us to do. And its seems probable that far more will join us from without than will remain loyal from within.

You and I don’t agree on a number of things, including some creation/evolution issues and how to defend the faith. But we agree that “the faith” must be defended if we hope to remain identifiable on any level as we near the end.

So, keep on challenging, and some of us will support the challenge agenda. If we can’t define who we are and what we believe, we just as well “throw in the towel” and join the eccumenical movement and be done with it.

Bill Sorensen

NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science
As a side note. Does anyone know if Hal Holbrook is now a SDA? He was in several secular movies and I assume was not even a Christian at that time.

He now is a moderator on issues of creation and the Sabbath and I am sure some of you have seen him on HOPE channel and Amazing Facts doing his series.

Let me know what you know.

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.