Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
Jan Long said….

“The fact that SDAs don’t believe in inerrancy should make us more conscious of the other human component related to revelation, that being the reader, and the certitudes that we sometimes superimpose upon interpretations.”

You use the word “inerrancy” out of context. We know the writers were fallible and in some areas may have even used faulty illustrations and even drawn incomplete or faulty conclusions when discussing what they want to convey.

Even after Jesus death and resurrection, the bible writers still thought and implied that the second coming and the destruction of Jerusalem were one and the same event. It was Paul who first conveyed a different idea in his letters.

None the less, as SDA’s we hold the bible as infallible for its intended purpose which is to convey to us the mind of God concerning His will and events concerning Jesus coming at the end of the world.

This means we accept Moses’ explanation of creation and have no need to assume he meant other that what he clearly stated. Seven literal days make up creation week.

Jesus never altered nor implied otherwise. And no bible writer contradicts or explains Moses’ meaning in any other context. So we need not assume any “scientific evidence” is grounds to abandon what Moses has clearly stated. And any such “evidence” is faulty and wrong in the way it is used and or interpreted.

Science is subject to scripture and not visa-versa. Just as “the church” is subject to the bible and not the bible to the church as Catholicism teaches.

The bible is self validating and external evidence only confirms its declarations concerning itself. Prophecy is the most reliable “evidence” and as history unfolds, we see that bible prophecy is infallible, thus affirming biblical declarations concerning itself as the mind of God and an accurate statement of God’s will for mankind.

Bill Sorensen

---

Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
Inge Anderson said…..

“Jesus called His hearers back to the truths originally revealed by God through Moses and the later prophets. these truths had been contaminated beyond recognition by the interpretations of the theologians and scholars of the day — the pharisees and the scribes. Jesus removed the accretions of the millennia to allow truth to be revealed in its purity.”

This is the correct understanding in interpretation of the situation at the time of Christ.

Sad to say, many assume the religious leaders of Jesus’ day had a correct interpretation and understanding of the old covenant. From this mis-conception, they then assume Jesus is introducing a “new theology” and a “new covenant”. And from there, they create a dispensationalism theology that implies the old covenant was, ipso facto, legalism.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The old covenant was simply the new covenant in types and symbols. A failure to discern parallel and contrast between the two covenants always leads to a false interpretation.

Thanks for your inciteful comment, Inge.

Bill Sorensen

---

Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
There is a “shift” in emphasis, but not in truth in the new testament.

Simply put, it is this. In the old testament it is “obey and live”. In the new testament, it is “live and obey”.

Neither emphasis denies the other. And when people interpret the shift to mean that “live and obey” superceeds “obey and live” they will always misunderstand the bible and embrace some sort of dispensationalism that is faulty and foreign to the biblical message.

So they assume “obey and live” is ipso facto legalism and if and when anyone emphasizes “obey and live” they will accuse them of legalism.

Exactly why historic Adventism was attack in the beginning and will continue to be attack by those who fail to see and understand scripture.

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.

---