Sean said….. “You’re mistaken. If life on this Earth can be …

Comment on The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account by Bill Sorensen.

Sean said…..

“You’re mistaken. If life on this Earth can be conclusively shown to have the appearance of having been here for hundreds of millions of years of time, that would be very problematic for the validity of the Genesis account of origins… problematic for the candid rational mind.” – Sean Pitman

Exactly, Sean. Your “candid rational mind” will never see or know how miracles happen. Nor how “He commanded, and it stood fast.” Nor how “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all the hosts of them by the breath of His mouth.”

And all the trees and flowers and animal life were not “one day old” in their development. Adam was a full grown man and so were the animals. And the trees were not “one day old” either. They were created full grown.

Adam’s intelligence and comprehension were not on the same level as a new born baby. Many scientists who want to support creation by way of science are backing themselves into a corner and will finally see they can not substanciate the age of the earth by determining the age of rocks or anything else from the day of creation.

Through bible history we can determine the age of the earth as being aproximately 6,ooo years old. Not 7 thousand, or ten thousand. And EGW affirms in the Great Controversy the age of the earth is about 6,000 years.

And extra thousand years is not viable. And ten thousand years is way off the mark. If people will not accept the bible’s own evidence of self validation, all the science in the world will not persuade them.

Even if the truly find Noah’s ark, those who choose not to believe will remain in unbelief. So Jesus said, “If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if one rose from the dead.”

And Paul affirms, “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.”

Is there evidence of a flood? Yes. But all unbelievers soon find another answer by way of “science” to dis-credit the bible.

Take note, Sean, how earnestly the devil works to dis-credit prophecy. It is the one infallible testimony to validate the bible and its claims.

Dr. Ford, one of Satan’s main agents, worked earnestly to dis-credit Daniel and over throw bible Adventism and attack EGW and her ministry. And not a few have followed in his foot steps who hold a good deal of influence and authority in the SDA church today.

Spectrum and A-today never should have had a booth at the GC in Atlanta. They are not SDA forums, nor are they sponsored by the SDA church.

Do we let a Roman Catholic ministry have a booth at our GC sessions? To do so is to admit these ministries have a valid influence for truth and should be seriously considered for their teaching and spirituality.

If through science, you can influence someone to consider the bible and its validity, then “the law is a schoolmaster to lead us to (the bible).”

By a careful study of scripture, a scientist may be persuaded and even agree that natural science does not attack scripture. But you will never use natural science alone to prove the age of the earth, nor validate the creation week. On the other hand, you can use the bible alone to validate its stated truths.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
“How do we know that the Bible is a truly credible “spiritual revelation” rather than the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an?”


“Absolute “proof” does not exist for anything.”

What goes up, must come down.

” Your argument for “spiritual revelation” whatever that is and means, is claimed by all other religious groups for their preferred source of authority – to include the Latter-day Saints.”

Their system of prophecy is wrong and faulty. Therefore, their conclusions concerning “their god” is equally wrong. So their view of God can not be validated by a system of infallible prophecy.

God and the bible validate themselves and need no futher “proof” of their truthfulness or authority. Therefore, we conclude the self validating God who claims He is creator is just that. And so we have adequate evidence and/or “proof” that the bible is true and reveals the one true God.

In the same way, nature validates itself and its rules on a natural law level. “What goes up, must come down.” This in no way validates God or tell us who He is nor if He is the creator or not. Natural law, is a law unto itself. And for those who reject the bible, natural law is god.

Thus, they worship the creation instead of the creator. Of course, they have no “first cause” and don’t pretend to. They have theories, but know there is no proof.

We have no natural law “proof”. We have a spiritual law affirmation by way of the bible which describes and defines God. Who also claims He is the creator who exists outside creation. What reliable evidence do we have that this is true? Prophecy. Mostly, Daniel and Revelation. God validates Himself by way of prophecy.

Now we can know and trust His self revelation and have “faith” in the bible as the ultimate authority. If the God of the bible is the creator, He must necessarily exist outside of all He has created. He is outside the circle.

But for our sakes, He comes inside the circle and fellowships with us on our own level. The incarnation is the ultimate revelation of this truth.

How can Jesus be God and man? No one knows. But we do know He is. Because the bible says so. And we can draw some viable spiritual conclusions based on this reality. Namely, the God who exists outside the circle can come inside the circle and be one of us. He can willingly subject Himself to His own laws of nature and the moral law of love.

Anytime He wants, He can abandon this self imposed subjection and be the God outside the circle. The creator becomes the created. I don’t know exactly how. I don’t need to know. I do need to know that He can and did.

The bible tells me so. No one can “reason out” this reality, nor discover it by any “natural law”. It is contrary to natural law human reasoning. It is the “mystery of Godliness.”

Nature does not deny the possibility of a creator. Nor does it affirm one.

Intelligent design appeals to a rational possibility, but still doesn’t prove it. Neither would it gives us the necessary scope of who God is in the context of sin and redemption. Neither would intelligent design prove the designer was God.

For instance, what if their was a “god” who deligated the design of this world to some other being? What if there are many “gods” and one of them designed this world? We could ask a million “What if, questions, and still not have a true answer to our question.

The only way we can know is, first validate the bible as its own self affirming authority, and then trust its revelations as being true. Only prophecy can do this. Nature can only create more confusion as it can not explain nor reveal a creator God. In fact, because of sin, nature is even more faulty in helping us draw a consistent conclusion. Nature has been warped by sin.

Bill Sorensen

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
I suppose, Sean, in the end, no one will ever know what you are talking about or what you mean. As far as I am concerned, you run helter skelter from one idea to another with no definitive or consistent way of knowing or determining exactly what you mean.

I think most of us have some working knowledge of the human language. If I say the bible is self validating and appeal to prophecy as “proof” or “evidence” of its credibility, I think most people know what I mean.

On the other hand, I don’t know anyone who knows what you mean. And as I read various posts of individuals who respond to your ideas, I see they are as confused as I am as to the point you are making.

So, either many of us lack the ability to comprehend simple logic and communication, or, you lack the ability to communicate your ideas and thoughts.

It is obvious to me that miracles and the creation event are not natural law events that have any natural law base to validate the credibility of these things. Things happen. We can see this. How they happen is not discernable in many cases and can not be explained. We are aware that we are here. How we got here is not discernable by any natural observation.

And I speak of the human family, not individuals. But even the identity of an individual can not be explained by any natural law observation.

As an individual, you are not your mother, neither are you your father. Neither are you simply the product of pro-creation. God gave you a specific identity that goes beyond either one, and that identity was not created by way of natural law. It was God given at some time in the pro-creation process.

Now how do you explain that by “natural law”? And how do you prove it by observation? And where does it go at death?

Only the bible answers these questions and gives us a positive and undeniable statement about who we are, where we come from, and where we are going. Without it, we can not know.

Anyway, in the end, creation is only certified as to its origin by way of the bible. If we agree on this, fine. If not, someone is wrong and in danger of being deceived by appeals to “science, falsely so-called”.

I assume you believe “God created the heavens and the earth.” And He did this in a literal creation week. I doubt much else can be more helpful than a consistent confession of faith in the bible. If you feel more affirmed by way of science, so be it. I don’t.

Bill Sorensen

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
The name “Seventh-day Adventist” will no doubt be the “offense of the cross” in the near future.

We have a strange name unlike any religious group in history. Because our name defines to a large degree our doctrine, it is inevitable that those who abandon the doctrine will also abandon the name.

When the liberals see they can’t change the name, or the doctrine, and the name comes with the stigma of legalism, they will abandon ship.

Paul said in his day, “No one can call Jesus Lord, except by the Holy Spirit.” That was because persecution was inevitable if you named the name of Jesus. And no one would do it unless they had strong spirit filled convictions of the truth of Christanity.

Just so, in the near future, no one will call themselves a SDA for the same basic reason. Now, anyone and everyone can confess the name SDA and no one cares or challenges them substancially. This will soon change.

Unless you are ready for the charge of “legalism” to be attached to your confession of faith, you are not and probably will not be able to abide the name SDA. EGW has clearly defined bible Adventism and those who oppose her will eventually oppose the church.

In the not too distant future, we will see a shaking that EGW called a “terrible ordeal”. Each of us must be able to define clearly our faith as articulated and expressed in the bible.

“My church believes and teaches” will have no validity and a “thus saith the Lord” will be paramount in the defense of the true faith. Many today are willing to say, “The church has decided” and they sell their individual accountability for a “thus saith the church”. Such spirituality will never stand in the days ahead.

The last several decades have seen a spiritual errosion in the SDA church that parallels the early church apostacy when the Sabbath was abandon and heathen customs and rites entered the early church. We are in the “falling away” that parallels this period of history. I am sure none of us feel we are truly ready for what is to come. But we can at least see and know that it is near, even at the doors.

It is still my hope that Educate Truth will branch out in a more comprehensive dialogue on other important church issues.

Keep the faith

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.