Jim, If a “down” click had any influence on anyone’s …

Comment on The Basis of Biblical Credibility by Bill Sorensen.

Jim, If a “down” click had any influence on anyone’s opinion, I would hope no one would respect that person. Hopefully, we are not swayed by the up and down thumb, but rather by viable arguments for or against any position.

If I posted a position with the hopes of winning a popularity contest, I have lost, thumbs down. But if someone agrees on some level with what I have posted, it is some encouragement, none the less.

Keep the faith.

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

The Basis of Biblical Credibility
Gene, church members have been “buying the liberal message” for years. The Celebration Movement has been the most influencial spirituality to affect Adventism in the last several decades. And there is little evidence that it can or will change anytime soon.

It is not likely there will ever be another “church” structure in this world, but we need not be surprised by a shaking that leaves all of us in some dilemma that we did not envision. Will all the apostates suddenly run out of the church when the “straight testimony” is presented? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Perhaps we can re-claim our name, Seventh-day Adventist. A name many liberals will freely and readily abandon. EGW has defined bible Adventism in The Great Controversy, and this may be the final issue in deciding who a SDA is, and who is not. Many, if not most church members simply go to church and ignore the spiritual issues. This can’t last forever.

We can defend the faith. But only God can create some given issue to cause division. And the Holy Spirit will surely do just that in the near future.

Only after Jesus’ death and resurrection did the real dynamic of the division create a clear seperation between truth and error. Some simular issue will confront Adventism, even before the Sunday law. Our church leaders are doing all in their power to avoid this truth and cry “unity, peace and safety” but such a message will never hold the church together. A visible split must come in some way. We may not know exactly how, but we would be wise to prepare for it by searching the bible to know truth on all levels.


The Basis of Biblical Credibility
It is supposed to be “The Basis of Biblical Credibility.”

The closer we come to the end of time, it would seem it must come down to those who admit biblical authority vs. those who don’t.

For thousands of years the Jews have “kept the bible Sabbath” on some level. When they give it up for Sunday keeping, they must first admit some authority outside scripture.

While Sunday keeping vs. the bible Sabbath is the outward final test, it is backed by those who accept scripture vs. those who don’t. And those who don’t, must at some point admit they don’t. Otherwise, we will have ongoing and infinite bickering from now ’till dooms day.

God will eventually “force” those who have abandon the bible to say so. At the present time, many “claim” to believe the bible on both sides of any and all issues. This resolves nothing. It must first come to a showdown the makes all who don’t accept the bible finally admit it.

This is how Protestantism vs. Rome eventually came to a final showdown. And Rome eventually admitted the church was not subject to scripture in their evaluation. Once this showdown is completed, then the other issues will naturally resolve themselves because the bible is very clear on all the issues presently being debated. This means, those who opt for obscurity will abandon the bible because they claim it is not clearly revealed what is truth, and what is not, on any given issue.


The Basis of Biblical Credibility
Everybody must have “bailed out”. I haven’t seen anything posted for over two weeks.

I have read a lot of SDA forums, and all I see is mass confusion on every level on almost every spiritual subject discussed. Most of our offical publications do little to clarify SDA doctrine and we are becoming more and more in harmony with generic Christanity.

I don’t know if the church will “self destruct” or not. But it is in the process of doing so unless something more definitive is done to correct modern errors advocated and endorsed. I guess we will see the outcome in the near future.


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.