Geanna, it is not those of us who believe the …

Comment on ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement by Bill Sorensen.

Geanna, it is not those of us who believe the bible is clear enough in itself who want to “add words”. It is the liberal progressives who “add words” that are so contrary to the obvious statements and meaning of scripture, that some comments must be made to point out the obvious and unambiguous meaning.

“The church” in history has always made some simple comments on scripture just as Jesus did. Not to obscure the obvious, but to point it out.

This statement is meaningless “One would think that the Bible, mighty as the sword, could withstand delegates tampering with its wording.”

Those who made this statement were the ones who wanted to obscure its obvious and true meaning. Thus, hopeing to cover their duplicity by claiming to support what the bible says while all the time “adding words” that were so obviously contrary to the original intent we are bound to doubt their honesty and integrity in their statements.

John Brunt is apparently part of the present California resistance to clear biblical exhortation. LLBN is suspect as being far less than we would expect a SDA television channel would be in representing the true SDA faith. I have little confidence in their ministry and its intent.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement
Richard said to Ron……

“I don’t know if you’re a parent or grandparent but my concern accelerated with our own two children and now two little grandchildren. If you are a parent, I wish you success in using Creation as the primary way of keeping your own children in the church. If you’re not a parent, the same for your nieces and nephews. May God bless you with the sweet Spirit of a grace filled life that was the theme of this year’s General Conference Session.” Richard Osborn

Well, Ron can speak for himself of course. But my grandparents and parents were SDA. My children and grandchildren are SDA. That means I am in the middle of 5 generations of SDA’s.

Those who come before me would be shocked and amazed at the attitude many have who claim to be SDA. And yes, we were taught that God as creator in harmony with a literal creation week was imperative. Little, if anything transcends this truth in building the foundation of Christanity.

Over and over the old testament writers affirm the creator God as perhaps the most important truth to build your faith on. The new testament simply affirms Jesus as this creator God. Everything Jesus accomplished and stood for is useless and worthless without this foundational truth.

His atonement has no value if He is not the creator. His intercession in heaven is equally void on this same basis. How anyone can consider this less than it is and down play its dynamic and meaning for a bible Christian is beyond me.

If myself and family remain strong in the faith, it will be based on the certain reality that Jesus is the creator God who accomplished this reality in a literal week. The Sabbath, as well as all Christanity is tied to this foundational truth.

The intensity in defending this truth should be amplified, not diminished. Hopefully, all true believers will be ready to die to defend it if necessary. How could anyone “preach the Sabbath more fully” as EGW said would happen as we near the end, while attacking the biblical account of creation? I think at least some of us know this whole ordeal is an attack on the Sabbath and its biblical implications. And those who see little to be concerned about on this issue will be even less concerned about keeping the bible Sabbath. The conclusion is inescapable.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen


ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement
EGW said…..

“To believe that evil must not be condemned because this would condemn those who practise the evil, is to act in favor of falsehood. If, after a man has been given many cautions and warnings, to save him from his hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, he takes offense, and refuses to accept the message graciously sent him from heaven, and puts aside the reproof of the Holy Spirit, his heart and conscience become hardened, and he is in great darkness.” {SpTB02 10.1}

It is more than apparent that EGW has a deep concern that people may become too “cautious” in condemning evil. She has no interest in “it’s nice to be nice” when evil infiltrates the Christians community. The devil will use every advantage we are willing to give him. And if he can convince us not to condemn evil for fear of “hurting someone’s feelings” when it is obvious they are blatantly attacking truth, EGW expresses the need to demand and be confrontational of evil in these circumstances.

Notice how the liberals want to quiet down the confrontation and claim it is the “Christian thing to do.”

My comment is, don’t be deceived by the advocates of Satan’s tactics who have no spiritual backbone and hope to “wimp out” their obligation and responsibility to defend the faith.

Jesus never followed one singular format in witnessing. For the oppressed and down troden, he spoke words of encouragement and hope and faith. For the hypocrites, he demanded accountability in no uncertain language.

This is no time for patronizing, condecending attitudes when those who attack truth continue to lie and endeavor to turn our attention to other issues. And their followers cry “love, peace, and latitude in beliefs”.

EGW goes on to say…..

“There are those who have become apt scholars in this deceptive work. Those who can not see the danger that is threatening the Lord’s heritage because of these things will soon feel no enmity against the arch deceiver. Those who stand in positions of trust in our institutions are to show constant vigilance, else they will be taken captive. In words and deportment, in all their business transactions, they are to show the exactitude that will win the commendation, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” {SpTB02 10.2}
It should now be clearly understood that we are not really helping those who are determined to do evil, when we show them respect, and keep our words
11
of reproof for those with whom the disaffected one is at enmity. A grave mistake has been and is being made in this matter. Shall the servants of Jehovah, into whose heart He puts enmity against every evil work, be assailed as not being right when they call evil evil, and good good? Those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith of the people of God, are guided by a delusive sentiment.” {SpTB02 10.3}

Those of you who feel the need to stand by the historic faith, need not be intimidated by those liberals who cry “foul” when the evil is exposed.

Meroz was cursed by God because he did nothing in defense of truth and sat complacently by while the evil increased.

If “the church” is to survive and accomplish God’s goal and mission, it must stand and deliver without compromise.

She also warns about people becoming to conservative in defense of truth. They don’t want to offend. In some cases, perhaps more than we know, people don’t want to bear the cross and hope to avoid the confrontation for a life of ease and complacency. All in the name of “loving and kind”.

Such “kindness” is the worst sort of evil. And in the end, is worthless for the defense of truth.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen


ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement
Eddie says:
July 6, 2010 “Bill, we have been informed repeatedly by Geanna that she is SDA, keeps the Sabbath and believes in a literal 6-day creation week in the relatively recent past–so why do you still refuse to believe her? I happen to agree fully with Richard Osborn’s concerns–even though I, too, interpret the Genesis account as conservatively as any of you. I wish you guys could be less eager to condemn others.” Eddie(Quote)

I guess my question to Geanna is this, Eddie, “Why is she so anxious to support apostacy?” The old saying may not be true, but it conveys a point none the less, “Birds of a feather, flock together.”

Would she be as quick to defend those who advocated Sunday keeping if and when it could occur in Adventism? If not, what’s the difference?

EGW has well said…..

When there are among God’s people those who have departed from the path of humble obedience, those who have exalted self, those who have united with Satan in accusing and condemning the men appointed of God to be ministers of salvation, shall we keep silence for fear of hurting their feelings? 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 beclouded 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. {SpTB02 9.2}
When men stand out in defiance against the counsel of God, they are warring against God. Is it right
10
for those connected with such ones to treat them as if they were in perfect harmony with them, making no difference between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not? Though they be ministers or medical missionaries, they have dishonored Christ before the forces of the loyal and the disloyal. Open rebuke is necessary, to prevent others from being ensnared. {SpTB02 9.3}
To believe that evil must not be condemned because this would condemn those who practise the evil, is to act in favor of falsehood. If, after a man has been given many cautions and warnings, to save him from his hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, he takes offense, and refuses to accept the message graciously sent him from heaven, and puts aside the reproof of the Holy Spirit, his heart and conscience become hardened, and he is in great darkness. {SpTB02 10.1}
The enmity that God has put in our hearts against deceptive practises, must be kept alive, because these practises endanger the souls of those who do not hate them. All deceptive dealings, all untruthfulness regarding the Father and the Son, by which their characters are presented in a false light, are to be recognized as grievous sins. There are those who have become apt scholars in this deceptive work. Those who can not see the danger that is threatening the Lord’s heritage because of these things will soon feel no enmity against the arch deceiver. Those who stand in positions of trust in our institutions are to show constant vigilance, else they will be taken captive. In words and deportment, in all their business transactions, they are to show the exactitude that will win the commendation, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” {SpTB02 10.2}
It should now be clearly understood that we are not really helping those who are determined to do evil, when we show them respect, and keep our words
11
of reproof for those with whom the disaffected one is at enmity. A grave mistake has been and is being made in this matter. Shall the servants of Jehovah, into whose heart He puts enmity against every evil work, be assailed as not being right when they call evil evil, and good good? Those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith of the people of God, are guided by a delusive sentiment. {SpTB02 10.3}
There is to be a constant conflict between good and evil. Those who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit’s power are to strive with every power of their being to snatch the prey from the seductive influences of men who refuse to obey the word of God, whether they be in high places or in low. Christ’s property is not to pass out of His control into the control of the children of darkness. {SpTB02 11.1}
If this matter were rightly understood and closely guarded, God’s servants would feel a continual burden of responsibility to counterwork the efforts of the men who do not know what they are about, because they are enchanted by the delusive allurements of Satan. When God’s people are fully awake to the danger of the hour, and work fully on Christ’s side, there will be seen a sharp contrast between their course and that of those who are saying, “Good Lord, and good devil,” and we shall see much firmer and more decided work done to counterwork the schemes of satanic agencies.” {SpTB02 11.2}

Never was a statement more appropriate and applicable to a given situation than the one we are dealing with concerning LSU and the conflict between truth and error.

Keep the faith

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