I like the following EGW quote taken from Thursday's material:

SDA theologians on the fence, as usual, about the subject of original sin.

1)Before the 1950's, there was clarity on the issue of original sin. Being "on the fence" came as a result of not simply holding to the position we had held until that time.
2)Notwithstanding this, I think the point of the quote is well taken, that Paul is being made to deal with an issue he's not dealing with. That happens *all the time*.

Poor Paul. (or poor us).

What was the position before the 1950's and what is the position now? In fact, I wonder if there is any position now.

I don't think Paul is being made to deal with an issue he is not dealing with. In fact, Ellen White expands on Paul in quotes like the following ones:

"The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death." {9MR 236.1}

"Christ volunteered to come to this earth and stand at the head of fallen human beings, who were heirs of guilt, under sentence of eternal death. We must have perished had He not borne our guilt and the wrath of God." {12MR 61.1}

"We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression." {FW 88.3}

Before the 1950's, it was basically what Jones and Waggoner taught. "Bible Reading for the Home" quoted from Waggoner in regards to the questions related to Christ's humanity.

I think the Palmdale Conference in around 1976 said that either pre or post positions were acceptable. How that works out varies from place to place. In the U.S., I would say one could hold either position as an employee without a problem. In Brazil, it appeared to me that if you were a post, you'd better be very careful. Since you're living there, I'd be interested in your perspective. At any rate, opinion in the U.S. is much more divided than there. In Brazil, what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, was that many of the posts were negative in regards to the organization. I don't see that so much here. There are some like that, but there are many just "regular" SDA's who are posts, who have no issues with leadership.



I think most people have very little idea, if even that, as to what the culture was like in Paul's time, or the issues he was dealing with. He is interpreted with post-reformation lenses, and pretty much totally without regard to historical considerations.

I don't see that the EGW quotes have anything to do with either Paul's culture or the issues he was facing. I don't think it was her function to do this (to be a Pauline scholar) however.

If you recall what Kevin wrote (Kevin H.) in regards to EGW's ministry and writings, I thought he did a good job explaining it.

As it obviously can't be both pre and post, how can the belief of both be advocated in allowing both to be believed?

Romans 5 -- all died for all sinned.
Romans 3 -- all have sinned.

So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.

However as we see in Romans 3 - every human has a depraved sinful nature EVEN before they commit their first sin -- and for that we need a savior, we need the new birth, the Gospel.

So even an infant that dies, who obviously never sinned - requires the benefit of the gospel to remove the sinful nature.

By contrast Ellen White is clear that Christ came with the sinless nature of Adam before the fall - but with the fallen physical nature of mankind in his day (4,000 years of physical devolution) - not of Adam after the fall.

in Christ,

Bob

In fact, I was just taking issue with their assertion:


To me, trying to evade the implications of what Paul is saying is, as we say here, trying to block the sunlight with a sieve. It's obvious we share Adam's guilt. Ellen White says this clearly. I hadn't yet realized why SDA theologians stay on the fence about this subject, but what you said opened my eyes. If sin is just an act of the will, nobody is born in sin, and if theologians assume the position that man is born in sin they will automatically be assuming the pre-fall position, and they can't do that, since the Church allows for both positions.

Therefore, they contradict themselves all the time. In the section on "Sin" in the Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, for instance, John Fowler says that sin is a state (p. 246), a state of rebellion, and then says that "tendency to sin ... is not sin" (p. 257). But of course tendencies to sin are rebellious tendencies.


I would say your assessment of the situation is correct. Since most posts are negative in regards to the organizations, those in the post camp are viewed suspiciously.

I don't know if there is an answer to this question.