Sean, I will just make one more comment and then …

Comment on WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation by Bill Sorensen.

Sean, I will just make one more comment and then you can believe what ever you want, even if you are wrong.

Suppose I speed through some town and I don’t see a speed limit sign that says 35 miles an hour.

A cop stops me and tells me I was doing 50 in a 35 mile an hour zone. “OH” I say, “I didn’t see the sign, so I am not guilty of speeding.”

How impressed will he be with my defense that I am not guilty since I did not see the sign? He may show mercy and not write me a ticket based on his evaluation that I was truly ignorant of the law.

Or, he may write me a ticket and tell me I should be more observant since a couple blocks earlier there was a sign clearly posting the 35 mile an hour limit.

My final comment is that you have a warped view of guilt in reference to law. If you break God’s law, you are guilty whether you know it or not.

Just so, God may forgive sins of ignorance based on grace, not because a person is not guilty.

So Paul says, “At these times of ignorance, God winked at.” Not because people were not guilty, but because God took into account their ignorance of His will.

And the only reason God can “wink” at sin or overlook sin is because of the atonement of the cross. So, once again, you have a convoluted non-scriptural view of sin, guilt, and the law.

Bill Sorensen

Hope everyone has a nice Sabbath.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
LSU got themselves into their own trouble. Listen to the cry baby liberals who hold influence in the world to be over and above loyalty to God and His word.

If LSU can’t be saved to promote SDA values and bible teaching, then good riddance. This was EGW’s view as well.

By the way, I attended La Sierra College in the late 50’s and early 60’s. Of course, it was not a university then.

I think at least some fundamental SDA Christians are sick to death of hearing unity, unity, unity and acceptance while ignoring fundamental bible truth.

Bill Sorensen


WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
Bill Sorensen said, “Does Professor Kent think that God simply points to Himself and says, “I am God, now believe it?” Only a fool would believe it.”

Kent said…….”God said, “Be still and know that I am God.” (Psalms 46:10). Only a fool would refuse to believe.”

May I suggest you have used this scripture totally out of context. This statement is in harmony with all the other statements made in the bible.

The bible identifies God, His authority, and personhood in a thousand ways and mocks those who ignore and/or attack the biblical affirmation and says in a polite way, “Shut up and listen”. But only after massive doses of self affirmation in His word.

How would you know who God is if He does not first identify Himself and His position and authority in the universe?

While the bible does not give us absolute falsifiable proof, it does give us adequate evidence based on prophecy and history and yes, even science to some degree as to who He is and all His claims for worship.

We must remember that “adequate” is not “absolute”.

Just as faith gives us adequate assurance, but not absolute assurance that we are and can be saved. And this is of course because of the human factor in salvation.
If there were no human factor, then, and then only, could we have absolute assurance.

Just so, we have adequate evidence to base our faith on and there is no need for unbelief. Especially in light of the cross.

Bill Sorensen


WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
Notice Matt. 7:1-5

7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. ”

The warning is against being a hypocrite. And tells us after carefully considering our own spirituality, we may have discerment to deal with a brother.

The text does not condemn judgment, but duplicity.

It is the same as in Romans two where Paul deals with the same sin. So Paul would ask, “How is you condemn sin when you are sinning yourself, doing the exact same sin?”

Those who claim you can not judge, often use it as a “cop out” for their Christian duty to “cry aloud, spare not….’ and take the same attitude as Cain who said, “Am I my brothers keeper?”

Now it is true, no one can “judge” another person’s final salvation. This is what the Catholic church does when it consigns people to hell or heaven. Even Jesus said, “I judge no man, for judgment comes at the end of the world.”

Did this keep Jesus from condemning the religious leaders of His day for their duplicity? In no way. He said, “Ye are of your father the devil……”

But Jesus knew that some could and would repent as they were convicted and saw the truth concerning themselves.

Not only do we have a right to judge, but we are commanded to judge all things according to God’s word. The way the phrase “judge not” is used today in much of Adventism is in harmony with the false gospel being advocated by many.

When you understand that Satan’s final goal is universalism, you can see why he has corrupted this scripture to be in harmony with his ultimate goal.

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…]
-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.