Just as a side note, Cliff also takes the same …

Comment on Clifford Goldstein: ‘A Safe Place’ by Bill Sorensen.

Just as a side note, Cliff also takes the same view of those who deny 1844 and the Investigative Judgment.

We could wish all our leaders would be as definitive as Cliff is on these issues and demand some accountability in harmony with the biblical norm to deal with these issues.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen Also Commented

Clifford Goldstein: ‘A Safe Place’
It has been a little difficult to understand and define exactly what Sean and/or Shane mean by “evidence”.

I certainly have no problem with the idea of evidence as it pretains to scripture and a scriptural norm for its explanation.

We could ask according to the bible, “Is Jesus God?”

And we have abundant “evidence” of the fact that He is according to scriptural “evidence”. Jesus declares Himself to be God. He raises the dead. He forgives sin and many other “evidences” are stated in the bible.

John and the other apostles affirms that Jesus is also the creator. The scriptures affirm many things and then gives evidence of the reality.

When the bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God……”, it is affirming itself and other scriptural declarations concerning God and His relationship to man.

It does not suggest we can “prove” God created by way of nature. Even the complexity of nature does not prove God created it. Neither does it prove the God of the bible created.

As I have stated in the past, the real dynamic “evidence” of the validity of the bible is bible prophecy. As bible prophecy is validated by the historical process, we gain confidence of all its other declarations. Namely, the God who can accurately predict the future is also the God who created all things. Why? Because He said so.

In the end, there are a number of reasons why God has gone to great length to affirm His identity and authority in the bible. Perhaps the most important to us is His affirmation that He has the authority to forgive our sins based on a solid justifiable reason. Not simply because He is a “good guy” who will not hold us accountable for our sin. NO. NO.

There is a “just” cause and the new testament affirms it continually. Notice especially Johns account.

“If we confess our sin, He is faithful and JUST to forgive us our sins.”

This is no small issue. The new testament writers know that the law demands justice and there must be a just cause for forgiveness. Again and again they point to the death and atonement of Christ as that “just” cause whereby God can forgive in a righteous manor that does not bypass the principles of justice in His kingdom.

The creator God who demands a complete accountability of all His moral beings can not simply by-pass sin, but must have a clear and solid basis to forgive sin. That is, justice must be served, before God can forgive. But this is only one factor in the totality of redemption and restoration.

Sinful man must also return to loyalty to God and affirm the loyalty by obedience to the divine will.

God presents and creates His own “evidence” of His divine authority and creatorship and shows how and why He can forgive sin without compromising His justice.

Nature in and of itself is very superficial evidence and gives us little solid information to base our faith on and in the bible. The biblical account shows us that God transcends nature again and again. Every miracle defies nature.

How then can you use nature to “prove” that the biblical God is the creator? That God works outside of nature is a more reliable “proof” of His self affirming authority. He brings a flood. He stills the storm. He raises the dead. Nature allows for none of these events.

And last of all, and perhaps the most single important factor about nature, it reveals no “first cause” for its existence and how it operates. Total silence in this area. Not a single clue.

We must turn to scripture to find the answer and scripture proves itself. God explains it in His word. Or, as EGW has well said, “The only religion that leads to God is the one that comes from God.”

Nature by itself can never reveal the true God. Every heathen religion affirms this reality over and over.

Every culture from Eden to today has some knowledge of the true God by way of oral tradition. But in heathen countries and cultures, it has been obscured and perverted so that very few discern the truth without the testimony of scripture.

These few exceptions who discern an adequate knowledge of the true God and will be saved are by no means the scriptural norm. They are a rare few. Thus, we send missionaries with bible knowledge to open the eyes of the heathen to a revelation of God they can not discern by way of natural law.

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.