Lesson #6 - Sin

Here is the link to the material for this study and discussion:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/09b/less06nkjv.html

The following in the Sabbath Afternoon section tells us how affected this world is with the pandemic called sin:

There are more lives being affected by this pandemic than any other pandemic in the world.

The doctrine of sin is definitely one doctrine that doesn't take faith to believe in.

What is the essence of sin?

The answer from the Bible is obvious:

Selfishness is the essence of sin. The root of sin is unbelief.

I guess my previous post was more on the definition of sin than on the essence of sin, however, I do see lawlessness as both the definition and essence of sin.

The EGW quote below is interesting in explaining further the essence of sin:

The essence of sin in the above quote was therefore:

1 - distrust of God's goodness,
2 - disbelief of His word,
3 - rejection of His authority.

From Tuesday's section:

Are we all deemed to be sinners before we even sin?

How can this be so?

I would be interested in some answers on this.

Before we sin in acts. But if you are born not loving God supremely, aren't you a transgressor of God's law from birth - before you commit any sinful acts?

This is the Original Sin concept.



Traditionally SDA's said no. Since the 1950's some say yes, and some say no.



The Original Sin concept has the idea that we are condemned simply by being; that is, because of having sinful natures. So we don't actually have to commit a sin to be guilty of sinning.

The traditional Adventist idea was (and is) that to be guilty of sinning one actually has to commit sins.

This has significance in relation to Christ's ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The traditional idea was that at some point Christ would stop His work in the MHP, and at that point the 144,000 would stand before God without a Mediator. Without a Mediator, one could not be sinning. With the Original Sin concept, even without sinning one would still need a Mediator, so a different approach has been taking to understand what perfection of character means. Helmet Ott wrote a book dealing with this subject called "Perfect in Christ." See http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/ott/index.htm.

How it is so, you would have to ask the aforementioned theologians. That it is so, you can ask the scriptures: 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

And since death is the wages of sin and Adams sin brought death to all men, even those who had not sinned like Adam had, it seems clear that original sin is a doctrine supported in scripture. As for the "how", others may speak on that.

This isn't the doctrine of original sin. Original sin has to do with guilt, not with the fact that death came as a result of Adam's sin. Under original sin, we are guilty, even if we never sinned, because we have a sinful nature.

I like to say it this way:

1 - distrust God's goodness,
2 - disbelieve His word,
3 - disobey His command (or disregard His authority).

"By ONE man's disobedience many were made sinners." Not "each man's" disobedience.

How? That man was our representative.

On the flip side:

"By ONE Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Not "each man's" obedience.

How? That Man can be our representative, if we choose.

It is, to the best of my understanding, the why of the doctrine of original sin. The how then comes for instance in Augustines corruption of the eternal platonic image of man.

What SDAs? Ellen White says we are born in sin.

All SDAs. Ellen White didn't have a unique position on Original Sin. It's easy to see this couldn't be the case.

For example, consider the Holy Flesh controversy. They had an Original Sin position, and the SDA church battled them on that basis. If the Holy Flesh position was actually the correct one, and the SDA position was incorrect, Ellen White would have, of course, corrected them. She wouldn't allow the church to meet an incorrect teaching with unsound arguments.



Secondly she endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon, "The Word Became Flesh," which is incompatible with the Original Sin idea.

Regarding the quote you mentioned, William already discussed this.

The whole idea is Ellen White was the only SDA who believed in Original Sin (except for the Holy Flesh people) is absurd on the face of it. She wrote way to much on the subject for there to have been such a gross misunderstanding. It was known what SDA's believed, and what SDA's believed Ellen White's teachings were. For example:



The first paragraph is from "The Desire of Ages." The second is Haskell. It's clear that Haskell understood Ellen White to be teaching that Christ took our nature, with its hereditary inclinations, a position contrary to the Original Sin idea.

At this same general time, Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner were all working to refute the Holy Flesh teachings by publishing articles attacking the Original Sin idea. E. J. Waggoner discussed this at the 1901 GC session, the main issue of which was the Holy Flesh doctrines.

That Jones and Prescott and Haskell and Waggoner were wrong about all this, while Davis and Donnel were right, and Ellen White didn't utter a peep is a position difficult to take seriously.

If Original Sin meant that we all die because Adam sinned, then everyone would agree with it, as, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't any disagreement on this point. The disagreement comes over whether the guilt of Adam is passed genetically from generation to generation.

And what may the difference between the two positions be?

Are you saying that Ellen White is basically saying that every baby born was born in sin?

In practical terms, the differences are under one position Christ could not have had hereditary tendencies to sin (genetically passed) nor could He be tempted from within, because such would imply that Christ were guilty of sin (this is the Original Sin position). The other position is that these things do not cause one to incur guilt.

maybe there is a right doctrine and a wrong "original sin" doctrine.

on another site i got into it some with a catholic who was giving the definition of original sin. which for me is a contradiction. satan had "original sin", not us. sin originated with satan and we became "infected" with it by adam and eve choosing the fruit.






i throw these out for consideration.

This is a typical Adventist idea. Ellen White writes of how sin was passed by the influence of mind upon mind. So sin is not passed by way of the flesh, but by way of the mind (the same idea as you are expressing in terms of eating the fruit).

However, in this context "original sin" is more of a pun than anything else.

that was an agreement? "This is a typical Adventist idea." i dont know what this means. what i meant is that if we are going to use "original sin" then that is what it would mean to me, if i didnt make it clear. that is the only sense that i could see it to be true. any other use seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

By "typical Adventist idea," I mean something which has typically be said by Adventists for a long time.

Regarding what you think makes sense regarding the meaning of "original sin," that's what makes sense to me to, although this isn't how the phrase has been used theologically.

The Catholic version of Original Sin is that Mary was immaculately conceived so that Christ could be born without sin, meaning that Mary had a sinless nature. There's a fancy term for it, something like "Desoliderization," (but that's not quite right, since I couldn't find any hits for it in Google)



In the Protestant version, it is Christ who was immaculately conceived, "preserved immune from all stain of original sin." The teachings of Jones and Waggoner (and later Prescott) flew in the face of this idea.

glad to see when we can be in agreement, my brother!!





yes, i have a little bit of understanding of the immaculate conception. it even goes back to marys mother, doesnt it? i came across that somewhere, but dont remember where. maybe one of my encyclopedia readings.



aaaah,i believe im getting a little more understanding for your position. i think that issue is very important. do you remember if it has been brought up before in these discussions?i vaguely remember coming across that somewhere but will not swear to it.

"betcha" some apologists dont know that. knowing what they were against, just like the pioneers and the trinity doctrine, really makes a difference.

Christ excepted.

"Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right-doing. Yet he was a son of Adam, like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin, but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instruction of his father Adam, he honored the Lord in doing his will." {ST, February 20, 1879 par. 1}

"Because of sin, his [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." {13MR 18.1}

The question is, Do babies need a Savior? If so, why?

Babies need a Savior because their salvation is dependent upon the faith of their parents, and without a Savior their parents could have no faith.

I'm also glad we agree on the "original sin" idea you expressed. I'm not sure what you're asking here. What is the "it" you're referring to? (that you're wondering if it's been brought up before)

What would they need salvation for, if they are guiltless as you believe?

I think babies need a Saviour. But then, I believe babies are born lost. Hence, they need salvation.

You seem to be saying that babies need a Saviour because their parents need a Saviour. If "need a Savior" = "lost" then that becomes "babies are lost because their parents are lost." Sounds like Original Sin.

When you say "all die" are you speaking of eternal death, or just physical death? IOW, did Adam's sin entail eternal death or temporal death?

To go to heaven a person needs to have a character in harmony with the principles of God's government. This requires grace for all fallen humans, whether infants or not.



They're not born lost. Both Scripture and the SOP make this clear.





If a baby is born with a Savior, then clearly it's not born lost.

Regarding post #112782, eternal death takes place as a result of one's own choice, not Adam's. Physical death comes upon us because of Adam's choice.

The question is, where can you substantiate this in scripture? How long does this situation of salvation by proxy linger?

Is anyone born with a character in harmony with God's principles? If not, doesn't that mean that no baby, of itself, is in harmony with God's principles?

Born with a Savior - I can live with that. If one was born without a Savior, is he lost? If someone needs a Savior, doesn't that mean that he needs to be saved?

Born needing a Savior - can you live with that?

A character is developed. There's not a lot of revelation on this subject. 3SM has some things, as I recall. I can share what makes sense to me.

If a baby would develop a character in harmony with the principles of heaven, God will take that child to heaven. In general, God will take anyone to heaven who would be happy there.

Some babies would not be able to develop such a character. 3SM goes into the reasons why.



We all have sinful natures. We all need the grace of God. I'm not sure what you're asking here.



Good! Without a Savior, we couldn't live physically. DA 660 tells us, "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." So even the wicked have a Savior. He's referred to as "The Savior of the world" or "The Savior of every man" (depending on the translation) a number of times. Of course, this isn't the same thing as *accepting* Christ as a personal Savior, so eternal life is not conferred through this.



This isn't possible. One cannot even exist without a Savior.



No. One could already be saved, but this doesn't imply one doesn't need a Savior.



Yes. We all need a Savior, even if we are saved.

Tom, I don't know how many reasons you have already given for a baby needing a Savior, but you outdid yourself in that one.
If their salvation is dependent upon the faith of their parents, it's obvious that they need salvation in the first place. Why do they need salvation? Salvation from what?

Do babies need the grace of God because they have sinful natures? Did Christ need the grace of God? What do you do with the statement that those who have never sinned do not need grace?


Is your contention that babies need a Savior but they don't need to be saved?

The paradox of retaining the biblical truth that there is not one human who is righteous, not one who seeks God, all being turned aside. And at the same time trying to throw out original sin.
Sometimes people invent the wheel only to find out that it has the earliest imaginable history.

I usually say simply, that through Adam we received sin and the wages that come from it and that is why we die, even the innocents. From the second Adam, Jesus Christ we receive eternal life.

It seems again you're not understanding what Original Sin is. It is not having a sinful nature, which seems to be your thinking.

Yes, we all have sinned, and our sinful nature has played a hand in this. But his has nothing to do with Original Sin! Original Sin has to do with the idea that we incur *guilt* simply by having a sinful nature *irregardless of whether we sin or not*.

Even if a person never sinned, by virtue of having a sinful nature, he would still be guilty! I think this point is being missed.

From sin of course. As Waggoner stated, "sin is in every fiber of our being by nature." All human beings need grace. Babies are dependent upon their parents in this regard. 3SM discusses this.



No. If you read the following question by Arnold and my response to that in the post from which this quote was taken, my meaning should be clear.

That's the point! How many sins has a baby committed? If a baby needs salvation because of its sinful nature, then you agree with my view.

In the absence of William, since it looks like he's bailing on us, and he would probably be on the other side of the fence on this issue.....

You go, girl!

So, when a baby is born, you say it has no character. Therefore, it is obvious that it does not have a character in harmony with God's principles. It is, at best, neutral.

That's the theory anyway. But as anyone who has ever had a baby will attest, it is all academic. Within moments of birth, every baby will show you what it is like: It won't be a manifestation of unselfish love; it won't be neutral either; it will show you, in no uncertain terms, that it has only itself in mind. The only time it will be neutral is when it is asleep.


Sounds like throwing out Augustine to make room for Calvin. Some will make it, some won't, God will just let you know whatever He decides. What happens to the Investigative Judgment?


No baby is born naturally in harmony with God's principles. Do you agree?


Here we go again. You're talking about physical matters again. I thought we were talking about moral and spiritual issues.

Anyway, let's consider your point. "One cannot even exist without a Savior." That applies to the unfallen angels then, yes? So the unfallen angels also need a Savior?

I think you're conflating "Savior" and "Lifegiver." True, we all need a Lifegiver, because we do not have life original, unborrowed, and underived. But for most people, only the lost need a Savior.


One can be "saved" only if he was "lost." Jesus seeks the lost.

Actually, in wading through Augustine's writings, this is one area that I think I somewhat understood.

A foundational idea is that a person either has righteousness or sin; he must have one, no more, no less. "Original sin" is simply the loss of "original righteousness." Adam was created righteous, but he lost that through disobedience. And because he did not have righteousness of his own, he could not pass it on to his posterity. Therefore, we do not have original righteousness. Or IOW, we have original sin.

The catholic solution to this is baptism, among other things. Augustine's solution was that righteousness must be given back to the sinner through the sacraments.

The problem I see "historic" Adventists will have is that they believe in a neutral condition between sin and righteousness. Adam was created neutral, and stayed that way until he chose between sin and righteousness. So also, the rest of us are born neutral, and stay that way until we choose either sin or righteousness.

If our sinful nature did not incur guilt, you would not have such issues with babies and salvation since the newborn have not yet had posibility to sin for themselves. That even the new born still need to be saved indicate that there is more to our sinful nature than the tendency to sin. If you disagree with this, you must take the consequences and admit that anyone who die at birth would be headed for Gods kingdom wether Jesus had come or not.

When did you invent this salvation by proxy for babies? Surely you will have a hard time substantiate it from the bible...

Is "Confessions" the book to read for this or is that found in Augustines later writings? Which book would you recomend for his views on this?

Is this a reasonable argument?

This is Waggoner's point. He predates you.



I agree with Waggoner's view. If you agree with Waggoner, then I agree with you.

What I said is that character is developed, which wasn't original with me; Ellen White said it!



We, unlike Christ, only have sinful natures by nature. We are not agape; we are not God. Christ was God. He was agape. It is not true that Christ only have a sinful nature, as is true of us.

Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. The "our sinful nature" that He took was like ours, which is why it's called "our sinful nature."

Of course babies have a sinful nature. I've got no idea why it is thought the subject of babies will clarify anything.

If you're dead, there's not much you can do spiritually or morally. The idea I'm bringing up is a common one, brought up by Paul, and by the 1888 messengers, and by Prescott, as well as Ellen White.



No. FW 21 explains the concept (I'll quote it later).



No, this isn't her idea.





First of all, what you asked was, "If someone needs a Savior, doesn't that mean that he needs to be saved?" This is clearly false, as explained. We may be saved, but we still need a Savior.

Regarding this question, Romans 5:18 deals with this, as well as the DA 660 quote and the FW 21 quote. Here's another one that deals with it:



From Romans 5:18



In Adam, the human race was lost. In Christ, it was saved.

Did Waggoner say that a baby needs salvation because of its sinful nature? If he said that, then he agrees with what you call original sin, and I agree with him.

Again, I don't understand the preoccupation with babies. To know what Waggoner said, read what he wrote! We certainly have enough encouragement to do so!

Waggoner is simply contradictory, for if we need salvation because of our sinful nature (propensities to sin), the same is true about the Christ who he said was born with a human nature which had these propensities.

You think Waggoner is contradictory and Jones doesn't make sense. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't think your opinion agrees with Ellen White's, in addition to your ideas not agreeing with theirs.

The argument you are making here, is the same that that Holy Flesh people made. Haskell brought this out in his letter to Ellen White. It's predicated on Original Sin. If Original Sin were true, the argument would be OK. That Ellen White would affirm that Christ took "our sinful nature," as well as endorsing Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" should make clear her view of it.

Yes, that second sentence is all wrong, as the lesson isn't so good at explaining. One is almost mislead to thinking the lesson agrees with those lines, though!

Sorry for the length, below, of this post: correcting "original sin" takes some precision. I don't like leaving pertinent bits out, if I can help it.

Two words need changing, in that second sentence - first sentence indeed is fine:

This now fits the memory verse itself - by one man condemnation has come on all. Our sinful nature condemns us since it itself must be eradicated by hell fire, and Christ tasted that for us, having taken our condemned nature as his own and put it through eternal death by bearing all our guilt and suffering death resulting from God's wrath against sin for us; otherwise called the broken heart, which agape was willing to suffer.

Thus Rom 7 starts with the news of our release from the condemnation of the law by the body of Christ, who put our sinful, condemned nature through the death it must undergo, thus freeing us from that wretched life & eternal end, and releasing us with his resurrection, etc., redeemed from the curse we're under.

Also, contrary to what anyone, anywhere, anytime, wrote, Christ did not atone for our sin by dying for our sin: Christ doesn't reconcile our sin to himself...! Christ atoned for us: that's what the Bible says.

Back to the main issue here, Augustine was right on three out of four of his elements making up original sin: sinful humanity is inclined to sinning, morally weak or degenerate against that inclination, and thus captive and condemned by that inclination. The notion of receiving guilt by inheritance is all that's wrong with original sin. Human nature itself is thus irredeemable, but humans are redeemable, hence Christ took our sinful nature to produce righteousness using our human equipment with divine power from above by his Father's Spirit, so as to offer a perfect sacrifice for sin and suffer sin's death by God's wrath, so that thence all who believe may obtain the glory of God by that gospel (2 Thes 2:14).

To reiterate, "corruption" speaks of guilt, which is not naturally received from Adam's fall, but "condemnation" is.

The second word needing change is...well, maybe the whole sentence is unhelpful!! It's typically, incorrectly: we sin because we're sinners; we're sinners because we sin. This is wrong, since it diminishes free moral choice such that it prevents us from not sinning, whether we be humanist or charitable - even God couldn't break the cycle with the supposed power over death of his love; simply no possibility not to be sinners. It should be: we sin because we're sinful; we're sinners because we sin.

Since there's a straight line of cause and effect, here, and not a circular line as in the wrong statement above, there is actually an opportunity in our human reality for perfect obedience to God, by grace through our use of the faith of Jesus. IOW, we have to choose to sin and it's not something we're naturally stuck in, in light of Biblical grace and our God and Saviour.

In trying to correct wrong theology, in the 2nd paragraph on Tuesday, the lesson gets it half wrong, but only half wrong, fortunately. By our sinful nature everyone is born condemned to destruction - an automatic, human reality: the whole truth is that by grace we have a Saviour, since he lives forever more, and thus we are not left in our state of condemnation. That he lives forever more means that his salvation is effective for everyman, whom he personally represents by having taken our sinful, condemned nature, from which we need salvation from its fate of death under God's wrath against its sin.

Thus, by grace alone, before any man comes to faith during this life - yes, while Adam and Eve were hiding from the Son of God in the Garden, salvation is effective, rooted in Jesus' own glorified person, by virtue of both his natures - each of which plays a part in our salvation - human character and divine life, by the promise and plan of God, from the foundation of the world. [As an aside, the eternal life of Jesus' glorified humanity is for himself alone - after all, he's earned it! - as it is actually finite; the eternal life of his diety is for sharing! Jn 5:26 sets the scene: as the Father gave his Son to have life in himself, so he is able to share it out with his adopted brethern/sisters; this is incidentally the very context of that rather misused sentence about his life in DA 530, which speaks merely to Christ giving us what's his and we haven't got. (Cross ref. the Signs of the Times article for the whole quote!] At first mankind anticipated and believed in the Messiah through faith; now one hears of his history and believe in him through faith. There is of course no dispensations separately of law and grace...

The latter end of Tuesday's lesson requires a separate post.

The bit in the red box at the bottom of Tuesday's section is exquisitely beautiful: someone dared to say it!!!

Oh, yes, the paragraph under the "How" bold print question is an Adventist strawman..., but this red box story is spot on!!!!!!!

The Why is easy: sanctification is the daily experience of justification! They are mutually inclusive, not exclusive, after all!

It is because we need a Saviour who gives us the experience of his justifying righteousness, by grace through faith, that perfectly reflecting his character is both "supposedly" possible, and a requirement of salvation, finally known is its fulness by those ready for translation at Jesus Return. Therefore, we indeed may hasten his coming by cooperating with him - so that he can actually finish his intercession for our sins and come and get us.

Was the Savior also born condemned to destruction?

The problem is, you didn't explain how Waggoner's arguments aren't contradictory, and why Jones' arguments are completely different from those of Ellen White.


Ellen White never wrote a single word about Christ's nature when addressing and fighting the holy flesh theory. And Prescott doesn't say a single word about Christ's human nature having sinful tendencies in his sermon. Of course Christ took our sinful nature. What you have to prove is that He took our sinful spiritual/moral nature.

You think Waggoner's contradictory. I don't. Only if you're right is there anything to explain. Similarly with Jones. You see the arguments as different, but I see Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, and Ellen White all using the same arguments, as did Prescott, Haskell, Jones and Waggoner. *They* all thought they were on the same page.



First of all, Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner were all busy doing this very thing. Ellen White didn't exist in a vacuum. Secondly, she certainly did so by implication. She said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric of what they taught, and the foundation of what they taught is the following:



Haskell, to counteract this, quoted from "The Desire of Ages" and commented, regarding Ellen White's statements "This if fallen humanity, with its hereditary tendencies." Now given the issue of tendencies is the foundation of the "whole fabric," and given Ellen White said there was not a thread of truth in the "whole fabric," it's certainly the case that her statement would be including the foundation of the "whole fabric"!

You agree with Donnell and Davis on this point, disagree with Haskell, Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner, and somehow think that Ellen White agrees with you, Donnell, and Davis on this point, while disagreeing with Haskell, Waggoner, Prescott and Jones!




I quoted a parallel sermon to make clear to you how he thought. I explained to you that you could only think you agreed with that sermon by misunderstanding what he was saying. You saw what I quoted, didn't you?

You're not agreeing with Prescott's intent, but only with words reinterpreted by you to mean what you would want them to mean. This isn't agreeing with someone else.



Of course? That's an odd way for you to put it. You've tried to argue previously that Ellen White only used this phrase once, as if she misspoke, or something like that. Now you say "of course."



Tsk, tsk, tsk! Once again, trying to define the issue into something its not! I've been quoting from Waggoner and Jones to make clear that these red herrings don't apply. You're apparently recognizing this to some extent because you say that they are agreeing with you (a funny way of putting it, since they predate you, but it least it's a step).

So what are the real issues? I see two:

a.Christ had hereditary tendencies to sin (genetically passed).
b.Christ could be tempted from within.

I've quoted from the "old guys," as Arnold put it, to establish these points. Since you disagree with these, and they actually taught these things, these are actual issues to consider.

If you're going to assert an issue to be resolved is that Christ took our moral/spiritual nature, you'll have to first establish this as a fact. Please either quote somebody who asserted this, or recognize this as a red herring and move on to something else.

Here is Waggoner on this topic (from "The Gospel in Galatians")

3. Now as to the rendering of the expression “under the law,” in Galatians 4:4. I have no fault to find with the rendering, “born under the law,” but think that it is the correct rendering. I will go farther than you do, and will offer some Scripture evidence on this point. John 1:1, 14: “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The word rendered “made” is the same as that in Galatians 4:4, and evidently signifies “born.” The Word was God, yet was born flesh of the Virgin Mary. I don’t know how it could be so; I simply accept the Bible statement. Now read Romans 8:3, and you will learn the nature of the flesh which the Word was made:— “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Christ was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Philippians 2:5-7: “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Revised version. Now note the next verse: “And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” And now compare the above with,
Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

These texts show that Christ took upon Himself man’s nature, and that as a consequence He was subject to death. He came into the world on purpose to die; and so from the beginning of His earthly life He was in the same condition that the men are in whom He died to save.

Now read, Romans 1:3: The gospel of God, “concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David accord ing to the flesh.”

What was the nature of David, “according to the flesh”? Sinful, was it not? David says: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5.

Don’t start in horrified astonishment; I am not implying that Christ was a sinner. I shall explain more fully in a few moments. But first I wish to quote, Hebrews 2:16, 17: “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of man; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners.

When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.

And now as another parallel to Galatians 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
2 Corinthians 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isaiah 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.

4. You say:
“That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine?

You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.

I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them.

“Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him.

What a wonder! Christ had all the glory of Heaven; we had nothing; and so He “emptied Himself,” became nothing, in order that we might be glorified together with Him, and inherit all things. Christ was sinless, the very embodiment of holiness; we were vile and full of sin, having no good thing in us; He was made sin in order that we might be partakers of His righteousness. Christ was immortal, having life in Himself; we were mortal, doomed to eternal death; He suffered death for us, in order that we might share His immortality. He went to the very lowest depths to which man had fallen, in order that He might lift man to His own exalted throne; yet He never ceased to be God, or lost a particle of His holiness.

5. Again; why was Jesus baptized? He said that it was “to fulfill all righteousness.” We may not say that it was simply as an example; for that would be really denying the vicarious nature of the atonement. It must have been for the same reason that He died, namely, for sin. Not His own sin, but ours; for as in His death, so in His life, our sins were counted as His. And thus it is that He could be all His life, even from His birth, under the condemnation of the law. It was not on His own account, but on ours.

I think that I have shown clearly, by abundance of Scripture testimony, that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law, and that this was necessarily incident to the fact that He was born of a woman; “for man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble;” and this was literally true of Christ. He was in all things like His brethren, in His life of temptation and suffering, and even to length of days; for His earthly life was exactly the length of an average human life.

To answer the question succinctly, Christ was born under the condemnation of the law (Gal. 4:4), which the previous post explains in detail.

His divinity was holy. True?
His humanity was holy. True?
Jesus was in every sense a holy thing. True?
He did not possess the tendency to sin. True?

Tom, I thought you would agree that each statement is true. Even that last one, you would say that "possess" would not apply because Jesus didn't possess it, but He took it upon Himself. You even corrected EGW on her use of "possess" regarding us possessing Christ's nature. But you also say that EGW and the postlaps gang were all very careful to distinguish between what Jesus had/possessed and what He took.

Arnold, it sounds like you're trying to use the same logic as Rosangela in claiming to believe Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh." The intent of the author doesn't matter. Just consider the words, without regards to context or the author's intent. But that's not the way I'm reading Donnell. His intent is clear enough, even if he could have been more precise in the way he phrased things.

It is what he intended to say to the SDA's fighting the Holy Flesh ideas fought against. Haskell did so by quoting Ellen White, and explaining her meaning, in "The Review and Herald." Haskell explained to her what the theology of the group was, and she responded that their wasn't a thread of truth to the whole fabric. The part of the "whole fabric" most attacked was its foundation, regarding Christ's human nature.

Also, if you're going to take me to task for something I've said, please have the common decency to quote what I've said. I've repeatedly asked you to quote things, and you've refused, with the excuse that to do so would be contrary to the group's policy (apparently your idea is their OK with you're quoting them, as long as you're not precise). That excuse doesn't apply here, because it's not contrary to this group's policy to quote others. Indeed, it's encouraged! So please do so! Please quote the comment you have in mind that I wrote, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, mum's the word!

And?...: so what?

Are you thinking that means he was personally condemned in the sense of corrupted by personal guilt - they are not the same thing, as I understand & showed clearly before? What is your understanding of condemned human nature?

Also, the Saviour isn't naturally human - yes, I know he a few (four at last count) individual differences to his human brethern. He is, on this point, also the Son of God, divine. Hence, he took on himself our human nature which is naturally condemned by the law, and conquered sin itself in his flesh; thus he bore the curse of the law for us on the tree, and redeemed us from that curse - effecting the salvation of the world all by himself, that is without our participation and agreement when doing so.

Does this cover your question in its fuller context?

Here's something by Priebe:

I can't even begin to recommend anything. I searched online for his stuff on Original Sin, and I found something that was translated from Latin (I believe). I don't even know the title of the book it came from. I just waded through it as much as I could, until my brain finally gave up.

Not clear at all. If one needs no salvation, why need he a savior? He doesn't.

Those who are safe need no savior.


The first sentence is a good summary of Original Sin. IOW, apart from the work of Jesus, we are dead.

The second sentence is a good summary of the plan of redemption, which fixes the problem laid out in the first. But the enormity of the solution does not negate the existence of the problem.

Because the postlap position logically contradicts what EGW said about babies. When asked about the salvation of the babies of unbelieving parents, she said she didn't know.


But the postlap position is that babies are uncondemned. If so, their destiny is known. The fact that it is unknown means that the tidy postlap explanation does not explain it sufficiently.

I'm going to do this upside down.


You don't remember what I'm talking about? I don't remember where it was either. If I did, I can cut and paste like a pro.

To jog your memory, it was in reference to this quote:
I pointed out that the promise is that we will "possess" Christ's nature, which was superior to Adam's unfallen nature. You said that "took" would be a better word.

Even so, I'll stick with "possess."


OK, let's assume Donnell lacked precision. There's still 3 major points to go.


Here are the rest of the points in your quote, which I assume make up the "fabric" of their argument:

His divinity was holy.
His humanity was holy.
Jesus was in every sense a holy thing.

Are all of these false?

Even if the 4th point is false (tendency to sin), that's just 25%. There's still quite some fabric to go.

I'm guessing that the point on the holiness of His divinity is agreed upon. If not, speak up now, because that will be a huge point of contention.

Was His humanity holy or unholy? Is it wrong to say that Jesus was in every sense holy?

"automatic condemnation because of Adam’s sin"

That's Original Sin. Just because Jesus solved it doesn't mean there wasn't a problem.

Plus, I've always found it silly to mention the amoral damage to the planet as "needing a Saviour." Jesus needed to die to get rid of the thorns from the roses? No; Christ died for our sins. Amoral damage, such as blindness, can be restored with a word. Only sin requires propitiation by the Word.

Ellen White was never on the side of anyone or against anyone – she was always on the side of truth and against error. Not everything that Prescott, Jones and Waggoner said was right (in fact, it seems they influenced, and/or were influenced by, the holy flesh movement) and, as Arnold pointed out, not everything that the holy flesh people said was wrong. You said that “the issue of tendencies is the foundation of the ‘whole fabric.’” It is indeed very strange that she pointed out several mistakes in the “fabric” and didn’t point out this one (in relation to Christ), which you consider to be the main issue. It’s obvious that she didn’t think like you.

Ellen White to A. G. Daniells, December 14, 1903, D-269, 1903: “I have often been warned against overstrained ideas of sanctification. They lead to an objectionable feature of experience that will swamp us, unless we are wide awake. . . . During the General Conference of 1901 [the one at which she fought against the holy flesh movement], the Lord warned me against sentiments that were then held by Brethren Prescott and Waggoner. Instruction was given me that these sentiments received have been as leaven put into meal. Many minds have received them. The ideas of some regarding a great experience supposed to be sanctification have been the alpha of a train of deception which will deceive and ruin souls of those who receive them. Because of some overdrawn expressions frequently used by Brother E. J. Waggoner at the Conference, I was led to speak words intended to counteract their influence. . . . I was charged that I was not to hear their words for they must lead from the truth and righteousness, and will carry out into practice unless they change their sentiments to their doing strange works. Satan is leading them. Listen not to their sentiments.”
Haloviak, “From Righteousness to Holy Flesh,” p. 38.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=35


What I’m pointing out is that the fact that Ellen White endorsed a sermon of his doesn’t mean that she endorsed everything he said. In this sermon, he was basically saying what she said.


Sinful nature, or fallen nature – the meaning is, in relation to Christ, a nature affected by sin, not infected by sin.


No, this is the true definition. What Arnold and I have been saying from the beginning of this discussion is that “sinful tendencies” aren’t in the physical/intellectual aspect of our nature, but in the spiritual/moral aspect.

Where I disagree:

I don't believe anyone is born condemned to destruction (the lake of fire); we are born condemned to not inheriting eternal life (the lake of fire is for willful, conscious sins). We are indeed born sinners - transgressors of the law - for we are not born loving God supremely, but loving ourselves supremely. However, this is a sin of ignorance (we are not consciously choosing it); therefore, it is not imputed to us. However, the only reason why it is not imputed to us is Christ's sacrifice - and that's why we all need a Savior. However, a savior born loving himself supremely, condemned by the law, like us, would also need to be saved.

There was a problem, but the problem is not what Original Sin says it was.



Here's a reference that discusses this "silly" theme:

Given this is the case, and given Donnel had the truth, and given Haskell was in error, then Ellen White should have agreed with Donnel (at least to the point that he was right).

Ellen White said:



Your view would have her acting out of character.



If she endorses a sermon as "truth separated from error," at a minimum one would think the theme of the sermon would be correct. What was the theme of the sermon? That Christ took our sinful flesh.



Well, at least we agree on this! (It should be clear that Prescott doesn't say the same things you do.)



Right!



It should be easy for you to prove this, then, by quoting something as I requested. I see no quotes.



Please quote something from Jones, Waggoner, Haskell or Prescott that says something you're disagreeing with, and we can discuss it. Where are you getting "sinful tendencies" from, for example? I couldn't find a reference to this.

It's not "for" conscious sins. It's the result of choosing sin.





In what way would an infant love God supremely? Is this something a fetus could do? That must be the case, since if a new born infant can be condemned for this, then why not a fetus? How well developed a fetus must a fetus be to be condemned for not loving God supremely? Would this apply to a zygote?



This would apply to fetuses too, right? And zygotes? So God does not "impute" the sin of the fetus (or zygote) of not loving Him supremely since this is a "sin" of ignorance?



If it weren't for Christ's sacrifice, you're asserting, God would condemn a new-born infant for the "sin" of not loving Him supremely, even though the infant has made no choice. This doesn't seem very considerate of God. Why should He hold something against someone that the being has no control over?



Now this seems like a reasonable picture of God! Here we see that God holds beings responsible for light which they rejected. Apart from rejecting such light, there is no "frown of God." What light is a newborn rejecting?



This is another example of a straw man argument. Please quote something somebody has actually said, and argue against that. By "somebody" I mean Haskell, Prescott, Jones, or Waggoner especially (although any quotes would be better than this). Specifically, who is asserting that Christ was born loving Himself supremely?

So, you think we're naturally condemned to mortality, but not eternal death - which requires choice? Even our conscious record of sin isn't the issue, though...; yet, the unrepentant are - unnecessarily, due to grace - fated for hell fire...

What of the sinful nature itself: what is its natural status under the law of God? Isn't sinfulness condemned automatically, all by itself? This is a matter of human nature, not humans: having a condemned nature is subject to Christ's righteousness, for us - indeed for all men, and also for him, himself.

While his substitutionary and representative human capacity in taking sinful, degraded, fallen human nature I've dealt with in my previous post, another of his differences to us is relevant to your point here, in conjunction with the two covenants truth, below. He was born a Christian, submitted to the presence & leading of the Holy Spirit, as prepared for him beforehand: so he experienced the justification by faith of conversion from birth, while we obtain it by conversion toward Christ later in life. Hope we are agreed, here, thus far? Furthermore, overcoming sinful selfishness was pioneered by Jesus, by the faith he exercised, producing the character he fashioned as a Man.

Our apparent difference over Christ's humanity may be settled by the truth of the two covenants: our sinful human will is subject to choice and the presence and power of the Spirit is available to reject that sinful will. We may be deemed sinners by birth, but what are we actually? We're naturally sinful, not sinners! To be a sinner takes a free moral choice - not mere existence, and it's free because that part of God's creation hasn't been changed by sinfulness, due to grace and the Spirit of Christ.

Thus the old covenant futility of the will to obey is concurrent with the new covenant choice to submit to the power of Christ by his Spirit, just as he did himself by faith in his Father's will, exactly as he had learned from his Father "from the days of eternity" before they began creating the universe together, as Prov 8:22-31 describes, and he affirmed in John's gospel, not doing anything without his Father. That is now disputed regarding their family relationship, unlike when P&P was first published, but that's Christ's human example to US, having needed it himself to qualify as our Saviour, which role for us is his priority to being our example.

Hope that clears up the safety for Jesus, from my stand point?

She commented about her disagreements, not her agreements. She pointed out what was wrong in the holy flesh movement – and although she commented about our nature, she didn’t say a word about Christ’s nature. Therefore, this episode can’t and shouldn’t be used as evidence against non-postlapsarians – something which is often done.


Is this a joke? What I disagree with in Jones et all is the fact that they say that Christ was born with sinful tendencies/propensities in His human nature. Since they say that Christ’s mind wasn’t affected by sin, and since I can’t see how sinful spiritual/moral tendencies can be in the body, is there any way I don’t see this as contradictory?


Is it your contention that there will be fetuses and zygotes in heaven? Or is this just a red herring?


Is it your contention that a baby who has made no choice needs no Savior?


None. That’s why his sin is a sin of ignorance. I don’t understand what’s the difficulty here.


I don’t need to quote anyone. The dictionary tells me what “selfish” means. We are born with a selfish human nature. Was Christ also born with a selfish human nature? Or not?

“If you will battle against selfish human nature, you will go steadily forward in the work of overcoming hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” {HP 176.4}

“Men are selfish by nature.” {RH, January 6, 1891 par. 7}

“The nature of man is depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God. The works of the selfish heart are ‘as an unclean thing;’ and ‘all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.’” {MB 54.1}

I suppose you are referring to Christ's righteousness in His death, but the reason Christ could die for us was that He didn't need to die for Himself.

I wish I could present this matter before our people just as I view it--the great offering made in behalf of man. Justice asked for the sufferings of a man. Christ, equal with God, gave the sufferings of a God. He needed no atonement Himself. It was for man--all for man. {UL 219.4}


Sorry, but I don't agree with this. Only the unrighteous need to be justified, and they are justified by faith in Someone righteous who took their place. This couldn't have happened with Christ, and Christ couldn't have been His own savior.

EGW knew that tendencies to wrong-doing, both inherited and cultivated, were MORAL issues. Those who say that it is not are simply wrong.

Also, she said that we should not lower the standard of righteousness (moral issue) in order to accommodate these tendencies to wrong. Yet, there are people today who not only accommodate them in themselves, but claim that Jesus had them, too. Now, that's something to tsk about.

Jesus was righteous and holy. Period. If that happens to agree with Donnell's teaching, I'm not afraid to say he was right on that point.

Don't postlaps believe that "selfish by nature" applied to Jesus, since it applies to us? I'll tell you right now, my selfish nature is definitely one of those foes I fight against all the time. And there are some postlaps out there who teach that Jesus fought against exactly the same foes, in the same way.

Tom, isn't that right?

From a comment like this, one would get the impression you hadn't read her! Of course she commented on her agreements. For example, she agreed with Jones, Waggoner and Prescott, and she so commented -- over 1,000 times!



She said there wasn't a thread of truth in the whole fabric, Rosangela. You can't just ignore that. She also said that our arguments against those who oppose us should be wholly sound. You can't just ignore that either.



Nope. Not a joke. Please quote something.



No, it's not a red herring. I'm simply continuing the logic of your argument so you can see its absurdity. By the way, do you know for a fact that fetuses won't be in heaven? If so, on what basis? If a new born could be in heaven, why not a still born fetus?



No. Please re-read what I wrote. I said nothing like this. You wrote the only reason God does not the sin of ignorance against newborns is because of Christ's sacrifice. I think you're scratching where it doesn't itch. It seems you believe God is saying, "If it weren't for my sons death, I would judge these infants guilty of sin. But since He died, I won't." If this is the case, then why aren't all newborns saved? Christ died for all of them, so God shouldn't imputed their "sin" against any of them, so why aren't they all saved?



The difficult is you're asserting the only reason God doesn't judge newborns accountable for their sin is because of Christ's death. If they've rejected, then there's no reason for "the frown of God," with or without Christ's death. The purpose of Christ's death is not to all God to excuse the sins of newborns.



If you want to have a meaningful conversation, you do. If you just with to invent your own straw men to argument against, you're right, you don't.

He needed no atonement for Himself because He never sinned.



Are you saying you don't believe Christ was righteous by faith?

What are you talking about? The moral issue is giving in to temptation. It doesn't matter if the temptation comes from inherited or cultivated tendencies. Of course this is a moral question. Would you please quote something? These made up things are tiresome.

Please, please, please! Quote something by Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell or Fifield, and we can discuss that.



Ok, you can agree with Donnell, and I'll agree with the "old guys." However, please remember that Ellen White said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric of what Donnell was teaching.

It applies to the "our sinful nature" which He assumed. Christ took that nature upon His own sinless nature which was sinless and divine. Christ was agape, and as such, was not selfish.

You need to distinguish between Christ and the nature He assumed. I'm not understanding your difficulty with this. You keep asking these same similar questions, and I keep responding in exactly the same way. I'm not understanding the problem here. Isn't this explanation clear?



Christ fought against "our sinful nature" the same way we fight against ours. The "our sinful nature" which Christ assumed was no different than ours, which is why it is called "our sinful nature." If it were different, she wouldn't have said Christ assumed "our sinful nature," but something else.

The difference between Christ and us (laying aside, for the moment, that He was God, and had His own sinless and divine nature) is that Christ never sinned, even taking our sinful flesh. (However, He did take our sins upon Him, so was able to be tempted in all points as we are).

Let's get back to the real issues. I see two:

1)Did Christ have any tendencies to sin?
2)Could Christ have been temped from within?

Regarding question 1), both sides agree that Christ had no cultivated tendencies to sin. Also we know that his mother was specially chosen by God, and the prenatal influences He received from her should not have caused Him to have hereditary tendencies to sin which were not genetic. So the question comes down to whether Christ had the hereditary tendencies that fallen humanity has passed genetically, or is some special exemption was made for Christ. The answer is given here:



Christ "accepted" our heredity, "like every child of Adam." This is how He assumed "our sinful nature." The results of this heredity is shown in the history of his earthly ancestors.

What are the results of Christ's earthly ancestors? They are every sort of sin and vice one can think of. This is the heredity which Christ "accepted." Why did He do so? To "share our sorrows and temptations."

Now if our sorrows and temptations only involved being tired, or such things, then that's all His heredity would need to cover. But given that our sorrows and temptations involve more than that, His heredity had to involve those things as well.



Here we see the reasons for Christ's taking our nature spelled out. He refuted the enemy's lies by bearing everything that we have to endure. Do we have to endure being tempted from within? Yes. Then so did Christ. "He endured every trial to which we are subject." Surely this covers more than being being hungry, or tempted by Satan.

I think I've asked the follow question a number of times, but don't recall receiving and answer. Do you think there is a connection between how one views Christ's human nature and righteousness by faith?

You can agree with the old guys if you want. But if they do not agree that Jesus was righteous and holy, they, and anyone who agrees, are all messed up.

And please, don't drag EGW into that mess. I may not know what the old guys wrote, but I've read enough of the old lady's writings to know better.

Might I suggest that your universal application of "whole fabric" is unwarranted, especially if it means that you can't get yourself to agree that Jesus was righteous and holy. He was, after all, the "holy" One of Israel.

Arnold, this is tiresome. Some old red herring.



You're not reasoning things through here. Say we're interested in what some scholar wrote of the 19th century. If there were some doubt as to the meaning of some passage, would you simply ignore the testimony of his colleagues. Who would know better the meaning of the author? You, who live over a century detached from the scholar, or those who lived and worked with him? You're like an ostrich putting its head in the sand here, and have been consistently. At least Rosangela has made some attempt to consider the history of the situation. You act as if it doesn't exist.



You might as well accuse me of saying that Jesus was from Mars. This has absolutely no relationship to anything I've said. This is like slander.

...in his life and death: yes, by virtue of his righteous human character, produced by using our sinful flesh, he had earned what Enoch got, but his choice to be the Messiah required he die for sin, to atone for us.


I appreciate your point, and we are at a loss of words to distinguish between Jesus and us his brethern on spiritual "physiology"!...As I pointed out with the two covenants truth, both saved and Saviour experience/d selfish inclination overcome with the power of God's Spirit, but Jesus' experience of that righteousness by faith dates from his birth - mysterious as the incarnation itself, and irrelevant to our spiritual instruction, and not from conversion like we do. Essentially, His spiritual walk spanned his entire life, not just part of his. There's no word for that, in theology, that I know of, but it's akin to our justification, regarding being (made) righteous.

Submitting to God straightens our spiritual human bent away from God, thus resulting in justification: Christ's righteousness, based on the spiritual model that we receive at conversion renders his experience of defeating sin in his flesh the only reality that was his. IOW, that Christ modelled the reality and experience of justification by faith for us means his human character was meritorious and unsullied, indeed worthy of translation: wholly qualifying him to Saviour of the World, thanks be to God.

Is that more agreeable, while we may well disagree on Christ's human nature's moral set-up, though we obviously agree that he had the presence of his Father's Spirit all the time.

As I was doing the lesson on Sabbath the thought struck me, that if the sins of the fathers after the report of the 12 spies was passed on to the children, then why were their children allowed to come into the land of Canaan. Its because only those that had reached the age of understanding suffered death as judgement and with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, were kept from entering the land of milk and honey.

This shows God takes that into account when He passes judgement and I would say it applies to the question of sin and infants..

64But among these there was not a man of them whom Moses and Aaron the priest numbered, when they numbered the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. 65For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
Numbers 26:64,65

"automatic condemnation because of Adam’s sin"

Seems like a problem to me. I'd like to not experience that, if possible.

So you believe that means Jesus died to provide us bread, etc.? Don't you also believe that Jesus DID NOT have to die to forgive and restore Satan, the originator of sin? Yet, He has to die in order to restore the ozone layer?

It makes a mockery of what it is that crucified Jesus, and crucifies Him afresh today. It's not lack of bread, or a messed up atmosphere, or male pattern baldness, or thorny vegetation, or half-cooked french fries. Christ died for OUR SINS.

I've only heard that argument from those who believe that babies are sinless, but have to find some reason for why Jesus has to die for babies. In the process, they end up teaching that Jesus has to die for dogs, too, and plants, and rocks, and air, etc.

We can just do away with all that and accept the fact that Adam's sin made us all sinners, and Jesus has to die for every sinner that wants to avoid the death sentence. Then we can rejoice that Jesus did die for all sinners. All that's needed now is for the sinner to accept His death and His life.

Actually, it's starting to look like a serious problem. You can't seem to get yourself to agree with certain people, for whatever reason.

Donnell believed that Jesus was righteous and holy. I agree. Did the "old guys" agree? Do you agree? Yes or no?

(I'll check if I have the gift of prophecy and guess that your answer will be something along the lines of "Why do you ask that?" or "That's not what we're talking." I hope you prove me wrong.)

Let's look at what Donnell said:



Please note that part of his theology is that Christ "did not possess the tendency to sin." Now Donnell could have said this more accurately, as your previous comment brought out. What Donnell was really getting at was that Christ did not have hereditary tendencies to sin.

Here's what Haskell said:



The first paragraph, in quotes, is from "The Desire of Ages." The second is what Haskell said about it. Notice the underlined sentence. This is the point of disagreement between Haskell (and the other SDA's who fought against the Holy Flesh ideas) and Donnell (and the other Holy Flesh people, and you and Rosangela).

Here's something else Haskell said:



Their theology was that
1.Christ did not possess sinful flesh.
2.Therefore He did not have tendencies to sin.
3.We, in order to be holy like Christ, also cannot have tendencies to sin.
4.Therefore we need to have holy flesh, like Christ had.

This is pretty much the same argument Rosangela has laid out, the only difference being that item #4 is interpreted differently by her than by Donnell.

In order to meet this argument, Haskell, and the other SDA's who fought against it, meeting it as its source, which are the assumptions regarding Christ's humanity. Had they believed in Original Sin, they would have agreed with the first parts of the argument and only argued against the ending parts of it. Ellen White condemned the entire argument as not having a thread of truth in the whole fabric. She could not have done so if she actually agreed with Donnell on the foundational points rather than Haskell. She would not have said that the whole fabric had not a thread of truth in it, but that parts of the argument were right and parts of it were wrong.

Now of course there were certain things which Donnell believed which were true, such as that God exists, that we should keep the Sabbath, that Christ was holy and righteous, that our souls are not immortal, etc. (which we, as SDA's, believe), but these have not to do with the issue at hand. As I've pointed out, I see two differences between the prelapsarians and postlapsarians in regards to Christ's humanity.

1.Christ did/did not have the hereditary inclinations of which Haskell speaks.
2.Christ was/was not tempted from within (meaning He had temptations to face which were not brought to Him by some other being, such as Satan or an agent of his).

Those who believe in Original Sin argue that if Christ had any inclinations to sin (even by way of assuming a nature which had such inclinations) He would need a Savior. This is just what Donnell argued, and the argument continues to this day. You can see above that Haskell tried to meet this argument.

Those who believe in Original Sin also argue that Christ could not have been tempted from within because to be so tempted would make Him guilty of sin. This argument is also being repeated.

These are the two points where I see there to be genuine disagreement between postlapsarians and prelapsarians. That Christ was holy and righteous is an area upon which there is no disagreement. That Christ had a holy, sinless nature (also divine) is also not an issue of disagreement, nor is the fact that Christ was morally and spiritually perfect. The disagreement has to do with the characteristics of the nature which Christ assumed. This is what we should be discussing.

Now if you think there is some other area upon which there is disagreement, please present some evidence to support your point of view, by which I mean, quote something that somebody wrote. I'm not stating absolutely that the two things I mentioned are the only areas of disagreement, but that they are the only ones I've been able to think of. If you can think of others, fine, we can discuss them, but please do as I have done, and present some evidence to support your assertions.

It seems clear to me the above is saying that we owe our physical existence to Christ's death. How else would one understand, "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life."?

You're wish has been fulfilled! See Romans 5:18.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone that I was speaking about the holy flesh controversy.


Like she said that Satan was leading Prescott and Waggoner, Tom. Everything has a context and you must examine the evidence.


So you think the idea that we are born loving ourselves supremely is absurd? And I suppose you believe we are not born selfish, but that we become selfish later in life?


Tom, as long as a fetus can survive outside the uterus (20+ weeks gestation), he/she is a baby. There will be babies in heaven, not fetuses and zygotes.


Does the law condemn selfishness? Yes or no? Is it your position that unconscious selfishness is not a sin? Unconscious transgression of the Sabbath is not a sin? Unconscious idolatry is not a sin? (Unconscious in the sense that you don’t have enough light about the subject.) Or are these sins of ignorance?
What Ellen White says is, “His [God’s] wrath is never visited upon sins of ignorance” {ST, November 1, 1899 par. 7} (“no frown of God,” of course, would refer to the same thing). Thus babies and children, mentally retarded people, the slaves described by Ellen White, won’t be in the lake of fire.
The children of Christian parents will be saved because they are covered by the faith of the parents and correctly brought up. We don’t know about the children of non-Christian parents. Perhaps those who weren’t ruined by their parents will be saved – of course, owing to Christ’s sacrifice.


I explained why I didn’t need to quote anyone on this, and you didn’t reply to my argument, by the way.

Colin,

God's pre-Fall covenant with Adam was a covenant of works, while the post-Fall covenant was a covenant of grace by faith. Do you believe that God's covenant with Christ was a covenant of grace?

Boy, you can't miss a chance to bad mouth Jones and Waggoner, can you? Please take a look at #113081, which provides the context and presents the evidence.



No, you're getting off base here. You've just clipped off a little snippet of what I said, and are running off in a different direction. If you wish to discuss this, please provide more of the context.



Leaving aside that this statement is self-contradictory, it's your contention, I take it, that at 20+ weeks a fetus is guilty of not loving God supremely, and would be judged by God as such, if it weren't for Christ's sacrifice?



In the sense of condemnation, it's not, right? How else should one understand the statements "There is no sin" and "There is no frown of God."?



I'm thinking along the same lines as Ellen White. She's pointing out that these are not condemned, and why. The why is that they did not reject light.



Covered by the faith of the parents? That makes no sense, if you mean in a vicarious sense, which sounds like what you're saying.

The correctly brought up part makes sense, because what will determine if a baby can be taken to heaven is the same thing that determines whether anyone will be taken to heaven, and that's if he or she would be happy there.



This is rather vague, especially "owing to Christ's sacrifice." What does this mean? (I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but just pointing out that you haven't been at all specific).

The children of non-Christian parents will be taken to heaven on the same basis as anyone else, which is if they would be happy there. You're on the right track in saying "who weren't ruined by their parents" -- that's the key. This applies to Christian and non-Christian parents alike.



Sorry, but I couldn't get past where you said "I don't need to quote anyone."

If God didn't say anything, and left us all completely in the dark, would we all be uncondemned, having had no light at all?

Why would God condemn us for not responding to light He didn't give us?

You honing in on the "two covenants" and wondering what I'm thinking about?

I'm distinguishing between Israel's covenant of works of Ex 19:6 and God's covenant with Abraham of grace through faith: rather than dispensational law first and grace after Calvary, these two covenants operate simultaneously and have done so since Cain got jealous of Able...

On the Covenant or test in Eden, that was a test of faith, not works - God never tests us on works, but on obedience exercised by grace through faith. Grace before the Fall was provision of all they needed to choose to live in harmony with God's will - material provisions and love itself - just like the gospel of Jesus is by grace, adding a certain necessity of redemption from sin and sinfulness! Hope this is what you agree with and knew of anyway.

The covenant of God with Christ to redeem man should Christ carry out his agreement to be the Messiah, an identity he added to his Sonship forever more, was a covenant for grace, and of grace, but not by grace...: the Son of God had to fulfill a task - complete certain works, but the human element of his new existence needed grace to exercise "the faith of Jesus". The Son of man survived the Devil's onslaught by grace, but he also had to do a work, so works were the key element of that covenant agreement: perform to obtain salvation on the Father's commitment.

That is a well known arrangement among men: do something for a reward, and that reward is guarranteed by the report of task done. You agree that this was the sacrifice agreed on before the foundation of the world in the heavenly council of Father and Son?

Thus the old covenant is trying to supplant the arrangement between God and his only begotten Son - a little foolhardy, in the extreme, of Israel, but the two covenants of that old one and the everlasting covenant believed by Abraham are for us to choose between. Yes, both the Son's covenant with his Father before the world was created and his covenant with Abraham last forever: salvation obtained and salvation experienced both last for eternity..., after all.

Now I hope that wasn't missing the point of your question?

I don't know. But would He?

Why would He do such a thing, Arnold? Or, why would you think He would do such a thing? For God to do such a thing would be unjust, wouldn't it?

Why? I still don't know.

Would it be unjust? Maybe. Maybe not. But then, God is not constrained by what I think. If He was, there would be hotdogs on the Tree of Life.

Based on your understanding of sin, is ignorance a safe haven from condemnation?

Ooops, wrong text, there!!

Meant to be Ex 19:5, being God's promise to Israel, and v.8, where Israel replaced his promise with one of their own..., which he couldn't talk them out of, with v.9...

If you mean willing ignorance, that would be tantamount to rejecting light, right? If you mean unwilling ignorance, that gets me back to the questions I was asking before. I don't understand why you're unsure about the questions I'm asking. It seems to me obvious that condemning someone for rejecting light when they had no culpability in so doing would be unjust, and, since God is not unjust, He wouldn't do such a thing.

I am not going to make any comments, but quote the Spirit of Prophecy:

"Those who have an opportunity to hear the truth and yet take no pains to hear or understand it, thinking that if they do not hear they will not be accountable, will be judged guilty before God the same as if they had heard and rejected. There will be no excuse for those who choose to go in error when they might understand what is truth. In His sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for willful blindness. {LDE 218.1}

We shall not be held accountable for the light that has not reached our perception, but for that which we have resisted and refused. A man could not apprehend the truth which had never been presented to him, and therefore could not be condemned for light he had never had." {LDE 218.2}

Here again I will not make any comments, yet these verses and there are others as well. This is found in Numbers:

15:27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
15:29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

Last one from the Spirit of Prophecy:

"he thoughts and feelings of the mother will have a powerful influence upon the legacy she gives her child. If she allows her mind to dwell upon her own feelings, if she indulges in selfishness, if she is peevish and exacting, the disposition of her child will testify to the fact. Thus many have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil."--ST, Sept 13, 1910.

Here's my definition from post #113117:
I'm not talking about willing ignorance, where one neglects or ignores light that is available. I'm talking about God not making any light available.


So you're saying that had God kept completely quiet, and left us in total darkness, then none of us would be condemned because to condemn under those circumstances would be unjust. Right?

There's also a big list in Leviticus of sacrifices for sins of ignorance. Sins of ignorance required the death of a sacrifice.

So regardless if the sin is willful or of ignorance there needs to be a sacrifice? Right?

In response to liane's post, then wouldn't Christ's sacrifice have also been that sacrifice?

I think so. "Christ died for our sins." Paul didn't say, "Christ died only for the sins you did on purpose."

Sin is more pervasive and destructive than many people imagine.

We know that you disagree with Donnell's position that "Christ did not have hereditary tendencies to sin." I can accept that.

But you keep bringing up this "whole fabric" argument, seeming to imply that every single thing they taught must be wrong. He said that Jesus was holy and righteous. Can't you agree with that?

He also taught that Jesus DID NOT have a sinful spiritual nature. Can't you agree with that?

If you can, then please say so. Just say, "Yes, Donnell was correct on that point." I'm certainly no Jones fan, but I can tell when he's correct. I even defend his correct assertions. Is it possible that Donnell was not completely wrong on every single point of doctrine?

But as it stands, you just seem contrarian to me, disagreeing with the person, rather than specific teachings. If that's the case, that's too bad, for all concerned.

the Sanctuary and all that took place with it was a model of Christ. Everything was an example to the Children of Israel and can be studied by us to learn from.

The sacrifice covered willful and ignorant sins just as Christ did for us. I believe it should be our prayer when confessing our sins and seeking forgiveness is for not just the willful sins, but the ones they do not know about. We need to be just as sorry about the sins of ignorance as we are for the ones that we know we did.

As stated by Sr. White: His sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance.

thats a good thought but how can we be repentent for sins we do not know we are committing. that is what asking for forgiveness consists of, doesnt it? we arent just asking God to forgive us for having done it, we are asking Him to bring us to the place where we do not want to do it ever again.

the people of israel brought their sin offering when their sins of ignorance become known to them.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
Lev 5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
Lev 5:4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
Lev 5:5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
Lev 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned,....

"contrarian"

now that is a really neat descriptive word!!

Hi Teresaq:

It is not sins of ignorance that one comes to know, but to seek forgiveness for sins we do not know about.

Numbers is a prime example as I shared above:

15:27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

We are all doing this and we do not know what they are, well not yet. We must always assume we do. Why? Because we are born into sin and it is easy to sin whether we know it or not.

What does Jer 17:9 say: 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

A prime example is the Laodicean condition we are in. We think we are doing just fine, but we are as filthy rags committing sins of ignorance while thinking we are doing good.

It is only when we follow the request of what to do can we see our sins of ignorance and change. Revelation: 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

The eyesalve so that we may see our sins of ignorance, then we truly will see.

i believe that this merely goes along with the levitical verses which came first. the person would have to have known that they had sinned, albeit after the fact.

but i do agree that we have many sins of which we are ignorant of. im old enough and have walked this walk long enough to know that, believe me!!

i think the morning and evening sacrifices were the general covering....

i think we may have different understandings about "forgiveness". i dont believe that sins i do not know about are held against me. the thief on the cross being an example. my understanding of forgiveness, tho, is as i stated it before, but maybe not so well. we are forgiven when we have repented, not just because we ask for it. the forgiveness in this case is the cleansing of the sin from my life. otherwise there will be an awful lot of unrepentent sinners in heaven fouling it up because, after all, they did ask for forgiveness even tho they werent repentent.

that is one meaning of "forgiveness". another is that God forgave-in that He did not hold a grudge against us- before adam and eve even sinned.

That's the point! Although we are not aware of some sins, there must be a covering for them - which means, sin is offensive to God, whether we are aware of it or not. When we become aware of them, we also become aware of their offensiveness before God - that's the meaning of the sacrifices for sins of ignorance.

No, what Donnell was really getting at was that 1) Christ had holy flesh, and 2) we can also have holy flesh.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, there is more to holy flesh than simply tendencies to sin; there is also natural enmity against Satan and his will and, obviously, absence from the physical effects of sin. At least that was Adam’s pre-fall nature. Ellen White says three things about Christ: 1) that Christ was not “a man with the propensities of sin,” 2) that the enmity against Satan in Christ’s humanity was supernatural (not natural), and 3) that He had the physical effects of sin in His humanity. So Christ’s flesh couldn’t be classified as holy flesh. And if not even Christ possessed holy flesh, much less can we possess it.


Tom, you said that the idea that we are not born loving God supremely is absurd. Your exact words: “In what way would an infant love God supremely? Is this something a fetus could do?”
It’s more than obvious that someone who loves himself supremely cannot love God supremely. If we are born selfish, we are born loving ourselves supremely. Do you disagree?


A 20+ weeks fetus, if born, is born selfish, isn’t it? Or do you believe that we become selfish later in life? Does the law of God condemn selfishness or not?

The law of God condemns all selfishness. {ST, March 11, 1897 par. 2}

Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God. {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}


It’s true that we aren’t condemned for sins of ignorance. But isn’t this because of Christ’s sacrifice, or is it your contention that Christ’s sacrifice does not make provision for sins of ignorance?

In his sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for wilful blindness. {RH, April 25, 1893 par. 10}


“I know that some questioned whether the little children of even believing parents should be saved, because they have had no test of character and all must be tested and their character determined by trial. The question is asked, ‘How can little children have this test and trial?’ I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children, as when God sent His judgments upon the first-born of the Egyptians. The word of God came to the Israelites in bondage to gather their children into their houses and to mark the doorposts of their houses with blood from a lamb, slain. This prefigured the slaying of the Son of God and the efficacy of His blood, which was shed for the salvation of the sinner.It was a sign that the household accepted Christ as the promised Redeemer. It was shielded from the destroyer's power. The parents evidenced their faith in implicitly obeying the directions given them, and the faith of the parents covered themselves and their children. They showed their faith in Jesus, the great Sacrifice, whose blood was prefigured in the slain lamb. The destroying angel passed over every house that had this mark upon it. This is a symbol to show that the faith of the parents extends to their children and covers them from the destroying angel. {3SM 314.1}


Oh! I thought that all those who will be in heaven will be found there because of Christ’s sacrifice (even those who have never heard of it).
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

In that case there would be grace in God's relationship with the angels, too - they also receive His love and material provisions. But grace is for sinners.

God loves the sinless angels, who do His service and are obedient to all His commands, but He does not give them grace. These heavenly beings know nought of grace; they have never needed it, for they have never sinned. {HP 34.3}

"Condemnation" can be understood differently, depending on the context. For example, a baby can get AIDS from its mother, and be condemned to die, even though it is not guilty of anything. In we're talking about condemnation in the context of the following:



which is what I've been quoting, I don't see those who have no light could be condemned.



This looks to be what the above quote is saying, isn't it? "If light comes, and that light is set aside, or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject."

Isn't that what this means? The only way I could see one could disagree would be to have a different meaning of "condemnation" in mind, like that infant in the AIDS case.

Perhaps the the morning and evening sacrifices were necessary for some other reason than because sin is offensive to God. Of course, sin is offensive to God, but that doesn't imply that this should require a sacrifice. Even with the sacrifices, sin is still just as offensive to God.

Here are some prayers which were offered along with the sacrifices:



This gives an idea as to the understand the Jews had in regards to the sacrifices.

Well, let's look at what he said:



I'm seeing what I said here, that he was saying that Christ did not have the tendency to sin, whereas Haskell said that, according to Ellen White, Christ took fallen humanity, with its tendencies to sin. So this is where Donnell's teaching was met.



This isn't what was being dealt with in the quotes of Haskell and Donnell so, so doesn't look to matter in the context of this discussion.



Of course Donnell was aware that Christ had the physical effect of sin in His humanity, so his use of "holy flesh" did not have to do with this. By "holy flesh" he meant that Christ did not have any tendencies to sin. Your defining "holy flesh" differently than he did, but in terms of what was actually being discussed, your logic is the same as his. Namely:

a)Christ did not have hereditary tendencies to sin.
b)Our hereditary tendencies to sin must be eradicated.
c)Having hereditary tendencies is sin.

You're both in agreement on these points. The SDA's fighting the Holy Flesh controversy disagreed.



I think none of this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to have an extremely limited concept of love if you think loving God supremely is something that a 20 week old fetus is capable of doing, or a newborn.



Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature. The "our sinful nature" is the same for both Christ and fallen man. Our nature, apart from divine help, leads to selfishness. However, divine help is available to all human beings, including infants.

I don't understand all this emphasis on infants.



You noticed I said,"I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but just pointing out that you haven't been at all specific."



You continue not being specific.

What I believe is that God will take to heaven anyone who would be happy there, whether child or adult, regardless of professed religion, or anything else. To me this makes perfect sense in regards to God's character, as well as specific comments from inspiration, such as the following:

Sure, but there are other, original, aspects to grace, as I've listed previously in this thread. Saving grace is an added aspect, which shall serve its time in God's good planning, so original grace will continue as before, once sin and the great controversy has been settled and removed - not forgetting eternity for the redeemed on the new earth with the Lamb, on the flip side of that! My original point on this is that grace is far more than mere saving grace, bestowing undeserved favour, as its part of who and what God is, separate to mercy, etc, etc.

Colin, perhaps "graciousness" might convey your thought in a way that may be easier for some to grasp. Your point is that God has always been gracious, that His graciousness was being manifest long before there was sin and will continue to be manifest through eternity. I agree.

Saving grace is simply one manifestation of God's graciousness.

Yup, graceousness is a word for it, that we all use a lot.

So your contention is that Ellen White, on addressing the subject, failed to comment on the most fundamental point of the whole problem. It's strange that she was “led to speak words intended to counteract ... [the] influence” of Waggoner’s view on sanctification, but wasn’t led to speak words to counteract the influence of Donnell’s view on the absence of tendencies to sin in Christ’s humanity.


Yes, and since neither made a complete analysis of the subject, neither was correct.


They may have disagreed but, again, Ellen White herself didn't say a single word about tendencies to sin.

In fact, what she said on other occasions was that Christ was not "a man with the propensities of sin" (whether hereditary or otherwise), and also that hereditary tendencies to sin must be eradicated from our nature.

"Many children have inherited selfishness from their parents, but parents should seek to uproot every fiber of this evil tendency from their natures. Christ gave many reproofs to those who were covetous and selfish. Parents should seek, on the first exhibition of selfish traits of character, whether in their presence, or when in association with other children, to restrain and uproot these traits from the character of their children." {CG 132.4}


Loving God supremely is just loving what He loves and hating what He hates – nothing more, nothing less. We are born in the opposite way - loving what He hates and hating what He loves.

“The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked.” {TDG 34.3}


??? Divine help is for those who seek it, and babies obviously are completely unaware of it. Besides, selfishness is sin, whether one is conscious of it or not – selfishness is the opposite of love and, thus, the opposite of the law and the opposite of God.


Independently of Christ’s sacrifice, I suppose.

Christ's sacrifice occurred precisely because sin is so offensive to God. The cross demonstrates how offensive sin is to Him.

"In beholding the cross the view is extended to God, and His hatred of sin is discerned. But while we behold in the cross God's hatred of sin, we also behold His love for sinners, which is stronger than death."{OHC 45.5}


The understanding the Jews in general had of the sacrificial system has always been wrong. Just a few among them understood their meaning.

Colin, let's try again. You had said


??? Obedience is the same as works.

God always demanded good works, the law demands it, but because man placed himself in sin where his good works were valueless, Jesus' righteousness alone can avail. {OHC 122.2}

Adam would obtain eternal life - heaven - by his good works, his obedience. We cannot do this. We obtain eternal life by God's grace, through Christ's obedience on our behalf, which won back the heaven that Adam lost.

God's covenant with the two Adams is different from God's covenant with us.

Not really if you consider all that was going on. There were already a truck load of people speaking about Donnell's being wrong in terms of his view of Christology, and she had already given her thumbs up to their work, so she concerned herself with another aspect (you really can't resist taking barbs at Jones or Waggoner, can you?; rather amusing).



Perhaps their ability to analyze these things was better than yours. Perhaps there is a flaw in your analysis. For example, I haven't seen where your analysis takes into account that Ellen White said there wasn't a thread of truth in the whole fabric. Also, I don't see how you account for her endorsement of Prescott's sermon.

At first you claimed to agree with Prescott's sermon. I quoted you a parallel passage showing what Prescott's real thoughts on the matter were, so your idea that that Ellen White was simply agreeing with the same ideas you have is disproved. She knew what Prescott's thoughts on the matter were, which thoughts were very different than yours are, a fact which you can easily prove to yourself by familiarizing yourself with what Prescott's ideas actually were.



She said their wasn't a thread of truth to the whole fabric, and the start of their argument was regarding Christ's supposedly not having the hereditary tendencies that we have, so she did cover this.



Everyone agreed on this (except Baker). The disagreement was in relation to where Donnell and Haskell disagreed. Ellen White disagreed with Donnell. Your idea that somehow Ellen White in actuality agreed with Donnell and disagreed with Haskell without telling him, is not credible, as well as having Ellen White acting out of character both by giving false impressions and by not abiding by her counsel that we should meet opposition with arguments which are not wholly sound.



Are we born this way, or conceived this way? Is it impossible for God's grace to touch a fetus or an infant? Does it make any difference if He does so?

What, oh what, does this have to do with Christ's taking "our sinful nature"?



??? Weren't you just talking about the role of the parents' faith? Aren't they seeking it on behalf of their children?



How do you understand the angel's statement that where there is no light there is no sin, and the condemnation (the frown of God) comes when light is rejected? Fetuses and newborns aren't guilty of rejecting light, are they?

Christ died to save us. Without Christ's sacrifice, we were lost and without hope. Also the cross of Christ unmasked the enemy before the onlooking universe, and made clear God's true character, thus winning the Great Controversy.



Putting things strictly in terms of God's being offended by sin would cast God in a selfish way. The sacrifice of Christ was not for self-centered reasons, but for the good of others, as all of God's actions are. It's true that the sacrifice of Christ reveals God's hatred of sin, and that this is an important thing to see in terms of understanding God's true character, which is what the Great Controversy is all about.




Perhaps this is a reason for the morning and evening sacrifices: to manifest God's love for sinners.



If your talking about in the fullest sense, this is true, but in terms of the basic meaning of the sacrifices, both the Jews and the other contemporary cultures had a much better understanding of them than we do. This was their language, their way of life. The sacrifices were full of meaning.

It would be as if God were to communicate with us today in the language of TV's and computers and the internet. These are things we all understand and take for granted.

The SOP tells us that there is much we could learn if we understood the Hebrew economy better. This is how God communicated to them. The Hebrews understood this because this was their life.

Because spiritual things are spiritually understood, there were things those who were not spiritual (unfortunately many) did not understand. But they all had the same world outlook, an outlook which we do not have. God was communicating to them in their language, a language they understood because it was their livelihood, a language they shared with their contemporaries. It was God's plan that God would take the message He gave to them and spread it to their neighbors.

Works are readily misunderstood, deemed attempted without faith. Hence the choice of "obedience" instead of works, which is unambiguously the experience of justification - for us, and the experience of righteous by faith with Christ.

Christ had to produce merits for our salvation, true, and his performance was acceptable to his Father, who effected salvation of the world, as of Christ's death and resurrection. Are we not to be judged by our salvation experience of sanctified obedience, too?

That judgement also being understood to be a fitting us for walking into heaven, qualified as we are already by the experience of justification, not so? God's covenant with us demands essentially belief on our part, and submission to his Lordship, but the conditions of that belief are obedience and the works which are their visible form. Agreed?

How did we get here..., this topic?

True justification by faith results in the believing being made obedient. So from the point one is justified (provided one remains justified) one will do good works. The good works are both a sign of having been justified as well as a part of the process of being justified.

This was one of the chief points of the 1888 message, and a point which Colin has been emphasizing.

What does, "Christ had to produce merits for our salvation" mean? Also, for what purpose was this necessary?

Ellen White’s concern was Donnell’s last-generation theology, not his Christology. This is what she mentions in her letters and diary notes about the subject, as well as in her address given at the 1891 general conference. She never mentions anything about Christ’s nature – which you say is the main point in the whole controversy.


I’m concerned about you, because you almost idolize them.


Of course the statement that there isn’t a thread of truth in the whole fabric refers to Donnell’s and Davis’ main points, that is, that Christ had holy flesh and that we can also have holy flesh; that we can achieve the point of no longer having to worry about sinning; that if we have the correct type of faith we will never die; and that those who receive the seal of God won’t have any physical defect. But obviously nothing, to be believable, can be 100% wrong – not even what Satan himself says. In every mistaken teaching, truth is always mixed with error. Recognizing this is good common sense.


Ellen White, commenting about the sermon, says that in it Christ was exalted. The sermon was about righteousness by faith, not about Christ’s nature. However, what the sermon presents about Christ’s nature is correct – Christ didn’t come in the flesh of Adam – He came in our flesh. He took our sinful, fallen nature - except for one element: sin.


It has everything to do with it! It’s part of our sinful nature loving what God hates and hating what He loves. Was Christ born with this part of our sinful nature?


Ellen White seems to agree with the Wesleyan definition of sin. “Sin,” for Wesley, was willful sin (as opposed to sins of ignorance). So, when she says, “there is no sin,” this means willful sin, but obviously in this case there is a sin of ignorance.

She says,

The least deviation from its [the law’s] requirements, by neglect or willful transgression, is sin, and every sin exposes the sinner to the wrath of God. {1SM 218.2}

While

"His [God’s] wrath is never visited upon sins of ignorance.” {ST, November 1, 1899 par. 7}

Sins of ignorance are not held against the person because Christ’s sacrifice has made provision for them.

In his sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for wilful blindness. {RH, April 25, 1893 par. 10}

By no means! God is love, and sin is the opposite of love. The cross demonstrates that God hates sin, and the history of this planet demonstrates why He hates sin.

I'm desmonstrating that Christ could not have obtained our salvation under the covenant of grace. In the covenant of grace obedience (works) has no merit.

Of course Christ obtained our salvation under the covenant of grace. Christ was righteous by faith.

Rosangela, she said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric. The Christology was key point, as Haskell makes clear. Why do you think Waggoner, Jones, Prescott and Haskell all argued so strongly against this? It was during this time that Jones wrote the articles in the Review and Herald that would later form a prominent part in his book "The Consecrated Way to Perfection."

Also during this time Ellen White penned her strongest statements in regards to Christ's taking our fallen nature. For example, Christ took "our sinful nature." Christ took our nature, "defiled and degraded by sin." "The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man." Do you think this is just coincidence?



I see that God worked through them, as well as through others. You appear to have the idea that God only worked through Ellen White, that only she (and you ) are right, and everyone else is wrong.

I don't believe this. Ellen White said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. If I believe she was telling the truth, I should believe that, shouldn't I?



You're not paying attention to what Donnell actually said. For your convenience, here it is:



This was the linchpin of the argument, which is what was most addressed. Haskell's commented:



If you look at what we (i.e. SDA's) most spent time in with regards to the Holy Flesh teachings, it was Christology. This cannot be denied. Many articles were written on this theme, and even in Ellen White's writings Christology during this time is pronounced.



You've got to be kidding!! The title of the sermon was "The Word Made Flesh." The speaker pointed out that Christ took sinful flesh something like three dozen times!!!

How you can miss what the point of the sermon is is beyond belief.



If you mean "except Christ didn't sin," you are correct. If you mean something else, then you are totally missing Prescott's point. I'd suggest re-reading his sermon more carefully, and also take a look at what Prescott said during the 1895 GCB (during which time Ellen White was also strongly endorsing his work). It appears you're quite confused as to what Prescott was saying. This is easily remedied by setting aside your own ideas, and considering what he actually said.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Prescott was strongly influenced by Jones (at first Prescott was against Jones and Waggoner's ideas, but he was open to the leading of the Spirit of God.) His teaching on Christology was no different than Jones'.



The logic of postlapsarian theology is that Christ took our sinful flesh and was obedient in that flesh, thus preparing the way for us. This is exactly what Prescott argued, as did Waggoner and Jones. When Ellen White said that Prescott showed in his sermon that we can keep the law, this is what she meant. This is obvious by reading Prescott's sermon. Prescott said nothing specifically about Christ's showing that we can keep the law! Not a word! Yet Ellen White inferred this truth from what Prescott said, which is that Christ came in our sinful flesh and kept the law perfect, thus preparing the way for humanity.

Prescott demonstrated that we can keep the law by explaining how Christ came in flesh just like ours. Prescott did not say that Christ's sinful flesh was like ours except different in some way. He said the following:



This is what Prescott's theology was: Christ has "exactly the same flesh that we bear." This could not be clearer! It's exactly the same! The only difference is that Christ did not sin in our flesh, but we do.

It's very clear that this is what Prescott meant. You see this, don't you?



As Prescott stated, Christ's "has exactly the same flesh we bear." All Ellen White stated, Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity in order to share in our sorrows and temptations.



She didn't say this. An angel said it to her. She recorded what the angel said. I guess you could say that the angel agreed with Wesley's definition of sin.

It doesn't seem like you're addressing the point. The angels said that when light is rejected, then comes the "frown of God." The "frown of God" signifies the condemnation of God. No light rejected = no frown of God (else "then comes the frown of God" is meaningless.) This is the context of the statement "there is no sin."

So how does a baby's actions (or a fetus' actions after 20 weeks) bring the frown of God?

Before I comment on that, what covenant do you think Christ obtained our salvation under, and where did it come from?

Works...no merit: are you looking at Christ's obedience, or ours, or both?

Maybe there are considerations other than one's actions and the frown of God. Consider a person who was born into a situation where he never learned anything about God, but was taught evil instead (e.g. slavery). Will God frown at him? Will God grant him eternal life?

Why would God frown on him? Did he reject light?

Regarding eternal life, what I believe is that God will take anyone to heaven that would be happy there. If the person wouldn't be happy in heaven, he won't be resurrected. We know there are a certain group of people that won't be resurrected at all (such as certain slaves, e.g.)

Haskell addresses this point once or twice, but Ellen White doesn’t, either in what she wrote or in what she spoke about the subject.


The sinful tendencies of Christ’s humanity were a prominent aspect of their theology at all times, Tom, not just at this time. So this could hardly be considered an evidence that the holy flesh controversy revolved around this subject. In fact, Christ’s humanity was occasionally mentioned at this time in the Review as part of the theme which was receiving prominence – perfection – which, coincidently, was also the main theme of the holy flesh people.


There was no especial change in this period. Ellen White had been using such expressions long before the holy flesh controversy. For instance, in 1896 she said that Christ “took upon Him our sinful nature”, and in 1898 she said that Christ united “the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature”. On the other hand, during this period she also said, for instance, that Christ “vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory”, and that "He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man".
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wwhc/hoc-ab.htm


My position in relation to the EGW writings is the same as in relation to the Bible – that there are no doctrinal errors in inspired writings, and that uninspired writings must be judged by them – and not the other way around.


No, the main focus of the fanaticism in the United States was the last generation perfection/holiness. You can verify this by reading Haloviak, “From Righteousness to Holy Flesh,” p. 18-25, about what Haskell and others wrote to Ellen White, and what Ellen White wrote in return. Christ’s nature was a mere detail in all that.


I didn’t miss it. I said what he presented there was correct, but that Ellen White didn’t refer to that.


I’m not missing Ellen White’s point. She wrote that Christ “had not taken on Him the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. ... His finite nature was pure and spotless. ... We must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and [that] He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. ... Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted” (Ms 57, 1890).


This is the correct part. The wrong part is believing that sinful tendencies are in the flesh, and not in the mind/heart.


The law of heredity transmits to us a carnal mind. This is a fact.


No. The “frown of God” signifies the wrath of God.

1.Here's what Haskell wrote to Ellen White:



One week later he wrote the following editorial in the Review and Herald entitled "Christ in Holy Flesh, or A Holy Christ in Sinful Flesh." In this article, Haskell quoted Ellen White's statement in the Desire of Ages



and commented, "This is fallen humanity, with its hereditary tendencies."

Two months later Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review entitled "The Faith of Jesus." These articles would form part of his book "The Consecrated Way to Perfection."

Donnell countered what Jones was writing by writing articles of his own. In these articles Donnell asserted:



and



and



He stated a bit later:



Here is the Q and A of another HF proponent:



At the 1901 GC session, dealing with the HF movement was the primary concern. Waggoner preached at that session, saying:



What conclusions can we draw from this?

a)Clearly Christology was the driving factor in the false theology. This is where most of the attention was directed.

b)This opposition started immediately, upon confronting the HF error, and continued in the HF teachings were defeated.

c)Ellen White stated there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric. Therefore the Christology was false, as this was the basis of the "whole fabric."

d)You are on the HF side of this controversy (the Christological part).

e)That Ellen White was on the HF side of the controversy (regarding the Christology) is impossible:

i)It would require that she be rather a dolt, not understanding that their argument demanded the Christology upon which it was built.

ii)Or, assuming she was not a dolt, it would require her to be, at a minimum, misspeaking when she said there was not a thread of truth to the whole fabric.

iii)It's not credible to suppose that while there was all this activity going on fighting the HF Christology that Ellen White would not have spoken to Waggoner, Jones, or Haskll about it. "Way a moment, guys. They are right about the Christology. Don't fight them on this point. Discuss the following errors." She would have given counsel along these lines. She would not have spurned her own advice that we might opponents with arguments that are wholly sound.

2.During this time period, Ellen White wrote the following:





That she would write these while secretly agreeing with Donnell is rather far-fetched.

Regarding the statement you cited, clearly she is saying "in human nature" regarding defeating Christ in the same nature that Adam was defeated in. She wasn't saying that Christ defeated in Satan in the nature of Adam the unfallen, or else she'd be contradicting herself, as she writes that the nature of Adam "the transgressor" united with the nature of God. I have no idea why you mentioned this quote.

2.The position you hold regarding Ellen White seems strange to me. First of all, didn't she teach that we should judge doctrines on the basis of Scripture? She never said we should judge doctrines on the basis of her writings instead, or in addition to, Scripture. I don't understand why you have this idea.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit worked with the church as a whole. He didn't just use Ellen White and ignore everyone else. Indeed, Ellen White was emphatic that the Holy Spirit worked in a wonderful way through Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott. I don't understand at all the drastic separation you make between Ellen White and the others. She had a gift, and the others had gifts. She didn't make the distinction you are making.

For example, a delegate of the 1888 conference went to Ellen White to discuss Jones and Waggoner, and she told the delegate that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. The delegate was surprised, and said, "What, with all your experience, and being a prophet, he can teach righteousness by faith better than you?" She responded that yes, he could, that God gave him a gift that He didn't give to her.

Now I believe her. Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. Given she is correct about this, I don't understand your idea of judging his writings by hers. Why would you "correct" someone by someone else who doesn't understand the subject as the person being "corrected?" She certainly didn't advocate this.

My thinking on this issue is to simply read what people wrote, and see if it makes sense, and use the Scriptures in case any questions come up as a way of judging doctrinal questions. John tells us we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. The SOP tells us the Holy Spirit used Jones and Waggoner to send us a message, a message that could be taught by them better than she. Your whole outlook on how you approach their writings looks to me to be totally foreign to what she actually said.

3.Regarding Prescott's sermon, you claimed, "The sermon was about righteousness by faith, not about Christ’s nature." What I found beyond belief is that you could somehow not grasp that the sermon *was* about Christ's nature. I still find that hard to believe.

Regarding this comment:



I think there may be some confusion in regards to the phrase "sinful tendencies." I think it would be clearer to stick to the phrases used by the authors, and quote them. This can help avoid the "switcheroos" that Arnold mentioned earlier.

Prescott's theology was straightforward postlapsarian theology. He asserted that Christ assumed flesh which is exactly like ours, but that Christ did not sin in that flesh. "Sinful flesh" and "sinful nature" were used synonymously by the "old guys." You can look at Jones or Waggoner's writings and see precisely the same point made by them as Prescott made in his sermon, which isn't surprising since Prescott got his ideas from Jones.

I don't understand how you can read Prescott's sermon, and Ellen White's endorsement of it, and not grasp that she is endorsing postlapsarian theology. You'd have to either think that Prescott was not teaching postlapsarian theology, or that Ellen White somehow didn't grasp that.

4.There's a difference between a carnal mind and sinful nature (or sinful flesh). You seem to equate these, which I think also leads to confusion. Certainly if you equate them, we could not assert that Christ took "our sinful nature," (as Ellen White did) since Christ did not have a carnal mind.

The reason the law of heredity transmits to us a carnal mind is because we've all sinned. If we didn't sin, we wouldn't have a carnal mind, even having a sinful nature. It's possible to have sinful flesh (or "sinful nature") and not have a carnal mind. Christ demonstrated this, and the 144,000 will demonstrate this as well.

5.Regarding your statement that "no frown of God" signifies "no wrath of God," these are orthogonal concepts. The wrath of God has to do with His turning over those who have sinned to the consequences of their actions. For example:



Similarly in Romans 1:



One more example:



Christ suffered the wrath of God by being "delivered" for our offences. (see Acts 2:22,23)

Here's what the angel said:



From this we see that "frown of God" is talking about "condemnation." (see the underlined phrases). We see the reason that this "frown of God" or "condemnation" comes; the rejection of light. Since newborns (and 20+ week old fetuses) do not reject light, they do not experience the condemnation or frown of God spoken of here. As the angel puts is, "there is no sin."

Again, I don't understand why you think this has something to do with Christ's taking our sinful nature.

No coincidence about it! Last generation perfection of the saints was church teaching in Adventism, until perhaps 1950-80: not sure when it was officially dropped. Their method of achieving it was an instant change of nature rather than a slow, steady change of character with a sinful nature. This method is wholly wrong, but it's based on a teaching of Christ himself having taken sinless, morally pure humanity, totally different to the church's position, not so, Rosangela?



I've got that book, and he does a bad job of it. The 2nd group of statements cannot contradict the first, as he makes out it does, and you quote them as contrary - difficult to resolve. She wrote that theme her entire life, not just in her last 20 years. "Offensive nature", and "but not the sinfulness" appear polar opposites! Your other quotes, trying to back up the sinlessness


actually points out the real difference: "Offensive nature" fits with this quote since "taint" refers to character, not the flesh itself, it having to be "offensive". Taint is like something added to the original, thus eg. guilt and sin on the life, not the nature; the original nature he took was sinfully offensive. Also,

is unambiguous! infected nature but pure character. EGW couldn't have been clearer: that was church teaching, after all; different, now.



But of course, Rosangela! But, we are born sinfully minded, not carnally mind, agreed? Carnality results from sinful mind agreeing with sinful flesh.

The old and new covenant options for us are using the carnal mind or the Spirit-filled mind to relate to Christ and his righteousness. Jesus, having taken our offensive nature, never wavered from the Spirit-filled mind he was conceived & born with, rejecting while being burdened, all the way to his righteous death, with the sinful mind natural to us all. Don't know whether you agree with the previous sentence, though!

That fulness of man Jesus was is why Ellen White said he had to do that to be a fitting Example to us.

Good points. Their methodology was wrong because it was based on a false premise. Given this to be the case, it makes perfect sense that the church focused its attention on that false premise.



I agree. Prescott said that Christ had sinful flesh, exactly like that which we bear, but Christ never sinned in the flesh of sin, whereas we all have. That sets out the difference clearly as well. The equipment was the same, but the performance was different.



This is an interesting way of putting it. I take it by "sinfully minded" you mean "with a nature predisposed to sin." Personally I'd stay away from "sinfully minded" as that seems too liable to being misunderstood. You wouldn't say Christ was "sinfully minded," would you? But we could say that Christ took a nature which was predisposed to sin, and which would have resulted in sin, had Christ not relied upon divine power to overcome those predispositions.

I disagree completely. The opposite is true – they started with the theology of victory over sin and from there they went to Christology.

This is what Ida V. Hadley wrote to Ellen White (June 1, 1900):

"My husband and I stand alone openly, as far as the ministry of the word is concerned, an to this so called 'New Light,' which is sprung up, and preparations being made to thoroughly present to the whole state [of Indiana].”

She sent the following questions to Ellen White. They all were apparently related to teachings in Indiana;

1. Was Mary's body made holy, sinless, in her flesh, before conception, so that Christ was born from sinless flesh, and His own body sinless flesh of itself? Heb. 10:5.
2. Will any one give the Loud Cry [Rev. 18] only those who will compose the 144,000? [sic]
3. Does John 14:12 [doing greater works than Christ] refer only to the 144,000?
4. Does 1 John 3:2 [shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is] refer to the time of conversion or to Christ’s second coming?
5. In 'Healthful Living,' 3d ed., p 17, sec. 35 [‘God’s law is written by his own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every faculty which has been entrusted to man’], these brethren say means that the flesh, by the law, is made holy, sinless from top to toe.' Is it?
6. Is it Bible doctrine that men need never have died, but all been translated, if they only had grasped the ‘translation faith.' That that was why Enoch and Elijah was translated because they grasped this act, rather than others? John 11:26 [Whoever lives and believes in Me, shall never die]?
7. Is conversion a change of flesh, from sinful to sinless?
8. In Matt. 9:17 [new wine in new bottles and both are preserved] , does the word ‘bottles’ represent the hearts, or the literal flesh – the whole body?
9. Has the word ‘belief’ a deeper significance than the word ‘faith’?
10. Are we to get the idea from the [Ellen White] statement in the ‘Review.’ February 27 that ‘God would have his people converted in 1900’ that probation ends this year with His people who give the message? [R S Donnell frequently quoted this Ellen White statement from the February 27, 1900, RH: ‘The Lord calls upon his people in 1900 to be converted. The Lord can not purify the soul until the entire being is surrendered to the working of the Holy Spirit.’]
1.. Could the kingdom of heaven have been set up when Jesus was here if the people of God – the Jews – had been ready, had accepted the message of John the Baptist?
12. If John the Baptist had been permitted to live and go on with his work, would there have been then 144,000 purified pieces of humanity, ready for translation, and the work finished 1900 yrs. ago?
13. Is it possible for us to arrive at that place in our experience where we do not always have to be overcomers?
14. Is it a fact that we have no place to call people to until we have received the Laodicean Message, and it cleansed us, it being the Loud Cry of the Third Angel? Rev. 18:4
15. Is it possible to get where we will not be tempted from within, before Christ comes?
16. Do the scriptures teach that there is a difference between born sons and adopted sons; that adopted sons go to dust, and born sons are translated?
17. Does not Jer. 15:19 [take forth the precious from the vile] with other scriptures, teach us that there should be caution used in mingling with the churches that God calls Babylon?
18. Does 1 Cor. 6:19 [body as temple of the Holy Ghost] have bearing on the thought of sinless flesh?

As Haloviak says, “It seems apparent from the thrust of these questions that the core of the Indiana apostasy dealt with last generation presuppositions and focused internally rather than upon Christ or His nature. Questions 2 to 8 all focus upon believers, not upon Christ. Question 1 becomes relevant only in its presupposition about what the believer who would be translated must become.” (From Righteousness to Holy Flesh, p. 31, 32).

It’s clear that Donnell first created his theory about what the 144,000 must become, and then applied this to Christ. And I believe Jones and Waggoner did the same. People first became concerned with victory over sin, then they devised a method of achieving it and, on the basis of this method, attributed a nature to Christ.


I don’t think there was complete opposition. They had similar emphases in “translation faith,” and in the fact that "perfect holiness embraces the flesh as well as the spirit; it includes the body as well as the soul" (Jones); and both had “overstrained ideas of sanctification.”


Well, your contention was that Ellen White disagreed with her friend Haskell who, in writing to her, described the holy flesh movement as “a mixture of truth and error” (Haskell to Ellen White, September 25, 1900). As I said previously, even Satan mixes truth and error, but if you think you must take Ellen White’s words literally, what can I do?


Could you please explain how I can be “in the HF side of this controversy (the Christological part)” if I don’t believe Christ had holy flesh? It’s like saying that I am on the post-lapsarian side of this controversy (the Christological part) because I believe that Christ had fallen flesh. To me neither party is completely wrong, and neither party is completely right.


I agree, since she didn’t believe Christ had holy flesh.


To demonstrate that, contrarily to what you say, Ellen White saw no significant differences between a nature with tendencies to sin and a nature without tendencies to sin in what respects Satan’s temptations.


So your contention is that there is no difference between Ellen White’s writings and Jones and Waggoner’s writings. Is this your position?


??? Don’t you think there is a contradiction here? Does the law of heredity, then, in your view, transmit to us a sinful mind, a carnal mind, a neutral mind, or what? We are born with a mind. What kind of mind is it?


??? The wrath of God is the manifestation of His hatred against sin.
Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men


No, the angel is talking about both the condemnation of sin and the frown of God – two different things, IMO. By the way, what, to you, is a sin of ignorance?

Hi, Colin! I'll reply to your posts tomorrow.

No they didn't. I went through the time line. Haskell immediately pointed out that flaw in the HF idea regarding Christ's human nature, and Jones continued with the Review articles, and Waggoner continued at the GC session.

If you wish to assert "the opposite is true," you should at least provide some evidence to support your point of view, rather than just asserting it.



If this is clear, you should be able to quote something to this effect from Donnell. Please do so.



Clearly there was opposition. I quoted clear opposition from Haskell. This is right from the beginning.

The emphasis on translation faith and perfection of holiness is fine; Ellen White emphasizes this as well.





This is perfection of character in the flesh. Perfection of the flesh is the problem.



Saying there is not a fabric of truth in the whole fabric has to mean something, Rosangela. You can't make this mean "I agree with the HF people on the point that is being most contested."

Don't you think it's odd that you side with Donnell and Davis and disagree with Prescott, Jones, Waggoner and Haskell? I don't understand how you can think they (the HF people) were right and the others were wrong, nor how you can think Ellen White agreed with the HF people and disagreed with the others, given not only that Ellen White stated that there wasn't a thread of truth in the whole fabric, but actually endorsed the specific theology of the postlapsarians.

Let's take a look again at the argument of the HF people:



Here are the points:
1.Christ took Adam's nature before the fall.
2.We must become holy in the same sense, for then we will have "translation faith."

What's the root of the argument? That Christ had sinless flesh. Now let's compare this to what Prescott taught: Christ bore exactly the same flesh that we bear, flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, but flesh in which He did not sin.



Sure. I'll just quote from Donnell.







You agree with all this, don't you?

You've made the same argument Donnell made:

1.Christ had no tendencies to sin (even hereditary ones)
2.We must eradicate all our tendencies to sin (including hereditary ones) to be like Christ.

Same ideas, same logic; almost the same words.

On the other hand, here's what Haskell said:



Prescott:





But you don't believe this. Maybe this is part of the confusion.



This is what "sinful flesh" is, flesh with "all the tendencies to sin that in our flesh."

You can't separate tendencies to sin from sinful flesh. If you look at the writings of all the "old guys," they all emphasize this. To deny that sinful flesh includes tendencies to sin and assert agreement that Jesus Christ had sinful flesh is rather disingenuous, as this would be giving a private definition to a term which is widely understood. This is particularly the case in reference to Prescott, who didn't have your idea in mind at all when he asserted that Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear.



Here's the point of contention, again:







The first quote is Donnell, with whom you agree, and the second is Haskell, and then Waggoner (at the 1901 GC session, where the HF movement was dealt its death blow).

The issue that was disagreed about, in terms of Christology, was whether or not Christ had tendencies, or inclinations, to sin in His flesh. Again, if you wish to postulate some other Christological area of disagreement, please present some evidence; quote something from the "old guys" which discusses your idea of the contention.



This is such an utterly false argument from a logical standpoint, it should be easy to see. All one can conclude from her statement was that she, in this statement, wasn't dealing with the issue of fallen vs. unfallen nature. But she dealt with this issue on many occasions. In the same article(!) she emphasized that Christ did not come with the nature of Adam before the fall, but with the nature of Adam after the fall.

Let's say I say "John and I are from the same country." Your reasoning above would conclude, "It's not important to Tom that he and John are from different states." That's not a warranted conclusion. All you can conclude is that being from different states wasn't something I focused on in my statement.

That having hereditary tendencies to sin was important to Ellen White is easily inferred from the following:



as well as DA 49, which tells us that Christ accepted the law of heredity in order to share in our sorrows and temptations.



This is another one of the "swicheroo" things Arnold spoke of earlier. Let's take a look at what I said:



Pray tell me how you conclude from this that I am contending that there is no difference between her writings and Jones and Waggoner's writings. Clearly if she thought Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could, there had to be differences.



I don't understand what you're confused about here. Have you read A. T. Jones' 1895 GCB sermons? This is explained in detail there.

None of the SDA's spoke of "Christ" and "carnal" in the same sentence. "Sinful" and "Christ" were spoken of, in terms of Christ's flesh (or assumed human nature), but not "carnal." Have you not noticed this?



The law of heredity transmits to us a nature with tendencies to sin. We need the grace of God, the assistance of the Spirit of God, in order to overcome these tendencies. This is the ordeal that Christ passed through. He was tempted in all points as we are. He took accepted the workings of heredity, assuming our sinful nature, that He might share in our sorrows and temptations.





This construction Ellen White used is extremely common. She repeated the same thing in a slightly different way. So common is this, one can just about stop at any page she wrote at random and find examples of this.

She writes that "condemnation" comes as a result of rejecting light, right? So, as I stated before, the condemnation spoken of here can't possibly come to newborns or 20+ week old fetuses, right?



An example of a sin of ignorance is given in the quote we're discussing:



Ellen White and her group were ignorantly observing the Sabbath from 6:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

Tom, you may be wasting all your research effort here, because cleansed characters by Christ's completed & finished mediation as High Priest is SDA gospel focus orientated by the sanctuary truth as well as our eschatology. Since that focus is there, the HF movement tried a short cut to get there, likely having given up on any notion of character Christlikeness being possible in our sinful nature.

Thus their reasoning, as opposed to their logic, went from the gospel goal backwards, to change the rules on Christology, not from changing gospel history forward to the gospel goal.

??? What does this have to do with their line of reasoning? At the time their points began to be refuted, the theory had already been formulated in its entirety.



OK.

“What I Taught in Indiana,” pp 5-6 “[Quotes DA, 117] ‘From eternal ages it was God's purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph to man, should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator. Because of sin, humanity ceased to be a temple for God. Darkened and defiled by evil, the heart of man no longer revealed the glory of the Divine One. But by the incarnation of the Son of God, the purpose of Heaven is fulfilled. God dwells in humanity, and through saving grace the heart of man becomes again His temple.’ [Donnell comments] This certainly proves that Christ dwelt in the same kind of flesh as do the brethren, the restored or sanctified ones. How clear it is from this statement that the cause for God's forsaking humanity as His temple must be removed before He can return and again occupy it as was His purpose from eternity. This removal was wrought when Christ becomes incarnate in human flesh, even in yours and mine; for conversion is only incarnation going right on, God being manifest in the flesh. And of this Christ was a perfect sample, an exhibition of what the power of God, or Christ dwelling in us, would do for us.”

Donnell starts with the kind of flesh the sanctified ones have, one in which God dwells, and then goes on to demonstrate that Christ dwelt in the same flesh as they. Also the overstrained ideas on sanctification are apparent: conversion is God’s incarnation in us.

Again:

p. 5: Men can continually do righteous acts only as God is incarnate in them; and it was God’s purpose from the beginning to dwell in every created being, so that good works, or He Himself, might always appear in them. But in sinful men Satan is incarnate, and God and Satan cannot dwell together. The only reason why God does not dwell in man is because sin is them, and in order for God to again dwell in man sin must be eradicated. The body of Christ was a body in which God was incarnate, and as God and Satan cannot dwell together, the body of Christ must have been a body from which even every tendency to sin must have been wholly eradicated.

The key again is the overstrained ideas on sanctification. God must be incarnate in men, but since Satan is incarnate in sinful men, God and Satan can’t dwell together; from this he goes on to his conclusions in relation to Christ’s body.


I’ve never seen either the Bible or Ellen White speak about “translation faith,” neither do I believe there is such a distinct kind of faith. And I didn’t speak about perfection of holiness, but perfection of health as a part of holiness. As Jones puts it: “Therefore, as perfect holiness can not be attained without holiness of body, and as holiness of body is expressed in the word 'health,' so perfect holiness can not be attained without health. And 'without holiness no man shall see the Lord.'”


I would agree with this if the point had been contested by her. But it wasn’t contested and nor even mentioned by her, either by pen or by voice. If you were the prophet, which points would you mention? The less important or the most important?


Obviously both points are wrong.
1. Christ didn’t take Adam’s nature before the fall.
2. Even if He had taken it, we couldn’t become holy in the same sense.


I didn’t make these arguments. Ellen White did.

“Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin.” “Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” “In our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man.” {16MR 182.2}


As I’ve told you innumerable times, this concept is completely wrong. There are no tendencies to sin in our body (except, perhaps, tendencies to the use of drugs); all our tendencies to sin are in our mind.


The “old girl” doesn’t.


Seeing hereditary tendencies in this quote is a completely unwarranted inference. Besides, Ellen White says, in DA 116, that the same temptations Christ met and we meet were the temptations of Adam and Eve. There is no difference between fallen and unfallen nature in this respect.


I referred to differences in terms of authority. What I understand you are saying in your reply is not only that Ellen White’s writings weren’t more authoritative than Jones and Waggoner’s, but that their writings on righteousness by faith were in fact better than hers.


I want to know about the mind. Are you saying a child is not born with a mind, are you equating mind with nature, or what?


This is true, but it does not necessarily apply in all instances. Anyway, the condemnation which comes when the light is rejected does not mean that there wasn’t any condemnation before. In the case of a sin of ignorance, just the sin is condemned; if light is rejected, the person is condemned. The person is not condemned for sins of ignorance because Christ made provision for them:

In his sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for wilful blindness. ... We shall not be held accountable for the light that has not reached our perception, but for that which we have resisted and refused. A man could not apprehend the truth which had never been presented to him, and therefore could not be condemned for light he had never had. {RH, April 25, 1893 par. 10-12}

Since a baby is born loving what God hates and hating what He loves, the baby is born as a transgressor of God’s law. This is a sin of ignorance.

1.Regarding the "old guys" disagreement with Donnell, Donnell argued:

a.Christ did not have tendencies to sin, including hereditary tendencies.
b.Our hereditary tendencies need to be eradicated, so we, like Christ, do not have tendencies to sin (the "holy flesh" idea).

To counteract this, the "old guys" argued that Donnell was wrong in his assertions regarding Christ's flesh. As Haskell pointed out, by quoting Ellen White, Christ assumed fallen humanity, with its tendencies to sin.

You're saying that you would agree that Ellen White's statement included what the "old guys" were fighting against if she contested this doesn't make sense. The threads of the whole fabric are, of course, not determined by her mentioning them one by one. We can see that Christology paid a part in the "whole fabric" by simply noticing what Donnell and the "old guys" were arguing about.

2.We agree that you see that you are making the same arguments that Donnell made in regards to tendencies to sin. We disagree in regards to Ellen White's making the same arguments as Donnell. I believe that Ellen White agreed with Prescott, not Donnell, which is why she endorsed Prescott's Christology, rather than Donnell's.

Again I note that you put Donnell and Ellen White on the side of truth, and the "old guys" on the side of error, despite the fact that she said of Donnell's teaching that there was not a "thread of truth" to it, but of the old guy's (Prescott's in particular) that it was "truth separated from error." It's a bit surprising that you don't see a problem with this. You seem to have the idea that the Holy Spirit only worked with Ellen White in regards to Christology (and maybe Donnell, I guess).

3.Your assertion that hereditary tendencies should not be inferred from Ellen White's quote on DA 24 doesn't make sense. She says specifically that Christ took our fallen nature for the very purpose of bearing everything that we have to bear.

4.Are you really asserting there's no difference between being tempted in fallen flesh and in unfallen flesh?

5.Regarding Waggoner's writings being "better" than hers, I didn't say this. I repeated Ellen White's comment that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. I agree with her on this point. I also agree with her that the Holy Spirit gave different gifts to her than to Jones and Waggoner. I also agree with her that God gave Jones and Waggoner a special message, and that we should heed that message. To agree with her doesn't denigrate her writings any. I believe, just as she said, that we should, as little children, accept all the light that God has sent our way.

6.Regarding the minds of infants or fetuses, I don't think they are developed to the point to where they can reject light. The mind at this point is very rudimentary. I think newborns are about as smart as cats. Or course, there is vastly more potential in the mind of a newborn human, or 20+ week old fetus, but this potential is yet to be developed.

I don't understand what this has to do with Christology.

7.I think your contention is a baby is born as a transgressor of God's law comes from Original Sin. This isn't something SDA's asserted in the time of Ellen White. I don't think you can find a statement from any SDA asserting this before around 1950.

I also think this is getting off topic.

Again, there are only two differences of opinion I'm aware of in regards to the human nature which Christ assumed. These involve Christ's being tempted from within, and Christ's having hereditary tendencies to sin. One view says that Christ could be tempted without an outside agent being directly involved (such as Satan, or an agent of his), while the other says that Christ wouldn't have been tempted at all if it weren't for Satan and his helpers. One view says Christ had no tendencies to sin at all, even including genetically passed tendencies. The other view says that Christ accepted the workings of the law of heredity, and had the same tendencies common to humanity as far as heredity is concerned (heredity from genetic causes, not pre-natal causes).

I think the positions one takes on this follows from the position one has on Original Sin, or, equivalently, on whether or not one believes that Christ assumed a human nature like ours; "flesh of sin" as Prescott called it.

Under a covenant whose terms were like those of the covenant God made with Adam: Obey and live, disobey and die - without any savior. If Christ had disobeyed, nobody could have saved Him.
These, by the way, were also the terms of the old covenant.


Ours, because Christ wasn't under the covenant of grace.

The only part of the New Covenant that doesn't apply to Christ is being forgiven of sin, since He never sinned. But the other points apply. Christ overcame by faith, receiving the grace of God to overcome sin. Of Christ, better than anyone else, it can be said that the law was written in His heart, which is the fundamental point of the New Covenant vs. the Old -- the law written in the heart as opposed to on tables of stone.

The Old Covenant leads to bondage because of unbelief. This certainly doesn't apply to Christ's experience.

The terms of the old and new covenants are completely different. Under the old covenant, you disobey and die; under the new, you disobey and are forgiven.
Don't you see that the main point of the new covenant is the "savior" part? Without a savior there is no forgiveness. As I said, if Christ had sinned, nobody would have saved Him. Therefore, He couldn't be, and wasn't, under the new covenant.


Ellen White speaks about the grace of God to renew the heart. This doesn't apply to Christ.

It seems to me the main point of the New Covenant is having the law written in the heart as opposed to on tables of stone. Let's look at where the New Covenant is first spoken of:



The difference between the Old and the New Covenant have to do with having the law written in the heart vs. being written on tables of stone. This is why the Old Covenant leads to bondage.

The promise of the new covenant is the law written in the heart as part of the heart renewal, which doesn't apply to Christ. Like Adam, He was already born with the law written in His heart.


The old covenant merely illustrated the covenant under which every human being is in Adam if s/he doesn't accept the new covenant.

Like the angels, the dwellers in Eden had been placed upon probation; their happy estate could be retained only on condition of fidelity to the Creator's law. They could obey and live, or disobey and perish. {PP 53.1}

I take it you don't think the following apply to Christ's experience:

a)Grace.
b)Having the law written in the heart.

Regarding b), I take it you see that Christ statically had the law written in His heart, because of how He was born, but not dynamically, as a part of His experience.

I'm guessing you either don't think Christ overcame by faith, as we do (instead He overcame as unfallen Adam could have), or you don't see any difference in overcoming by faith for unfallen Adam and ourselves.

In short, you seem to see Christ's experience as very different from ours. The only similarities would be that Christ had a physical body somewhat like ours (in that it could become tired, for example) and He could be tempted from some external source, such as Satan or an agent of his (like Adam, before his fall).

I'll be interested in seeing if you disagree with these observations (especially regarding grace).

Well, I missed the start of this..., but thanks for replying, Rosangela.

Yes, Christ wasn't really under the salvivic covenant of Abraham, since he is Saviour, but since he is the Son of man, he did live under it's terms, since he was born of a woman, born under the law.

Christ's merits are the work of God, but woven in human equipment - character: Jesus had to perform a righteous redemption of this world, with its salvation as the reward for him on completion. That's a contract with his Father, since before our Genesis history. Yes, no scope for falling to temptation, but even that performance used all the gifts of God to us, didn't it?

No renewal of the mind...: true, conceived and born filled with the Holy Spirit, but consider Lk 9:23, which says that following Christ's example involves denying self before taking up the cross of faith in sanctification. Our jusitification is modelled on Christ's daily and calvary death to self and sin, we being renewed after sinning, he learning righteousness without sinning.

Remember what righteousness by faith is, as stated in the Palmdale Conference consensus statement of 1976? "...The experience of justification", that is receiving the mind of Christ (J) and also his life character (S) - one step at a time! Christ operated outside the full support of grace for sinners but also inside its world, else we have no hope of obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is the life of his gospel (2 Thes 2:14). If forged outside of our existence and experience of grace, Christ's gospel righteousness is totally useless to us, failing to meet basic scientific requirements - trial and error under same conditions.

I hope you agree!

If we don't sin, does that mean our mind does not need to be renewed by the Holy Spirit?

Not sinning is not the goal - being like Jesus is! Not sinning is being an unprofitable servant (according to the parables of Jesus). Salvation envision born again believers being like Jesus, growing daily in grace and maturing in the fruits of the Spirit. This aspect of salvation has nothing to do with not sinning. Not sinning and maturing in the fruits of the Spirit are not opposites - they are totally unrelated, as unrelated as Jesus and Satan.

The core of the new covenant is saving grace and heart renewal, with the law written in it. I don't think these apply to Christ.


Of course Christ overcame by faith. What exactly is the difference you see between unfallen Adam and us in this respect?


What I believe is that Christ, differently from us, couldn't be tempted by the evil of His own heart.

An interesting passage I came upon about atonement for sins of ignorance:

The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the Most Holy place where Jesus stands before the ark, making his final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers, and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. Jesus makes an atonement for those who died, not receiving the light upon God's commandments, who sinned ignorantly.' Spiritual Gifts. Volume 1, p. 162.

Colin, as I see it, Christ is Saviour as both God and man. And Adam was also born under the law, but the pre-fall covenant wasn't a covenant of grace.


Christ had to pass the test Adam failed to pass in order to obtain eternal life - overcoming Satan. If Adam had done that, he would have obtained eternal life for himself and his posterity. If not, he would have died. The same is true about Christ. So, the covenant is the same for both. In order to overcome Satan, Adam had to be a partaker of the divine nature. The same is true about Christ. What is the difference, in terms of covenant, you see between Adam and Christ?

Ok, so you agreed with my characterization of your thought.



Ok, so you agreed again with my characterization of your thought. There are many differences regarding Adam and us in this respect. To mention just two, heart renewal and grace.



Do you disagree in any way with my characterization of your thought? If you agree, you can just say so. If you disagree, please point out some are of disagreement. Do you believe Christ could be tempted in any way other than by an external source, such as Satan or an agent of his?

Regarding the meaning of "under the law," something from Waggoner:

Regarding the meaning of "under the law," something from Ellen White:

Christ acknowledged Himself subject to the law. If this were not so, He could not be our Saviour, and take away our sin. {12MR 233.4}

In coming to the world in human form, in becoming subject to the law, in revealing to men that He bore their sickness, their sorrow, their guilt, Christ did not become a sinner. He was pure and uncontaminated by any disease. Not one stain of sin was found upon Him. {TMK 67.5}

Yes, and what is your thought? That Christ needed his heart to be renewed and the law to be written in it, like us? Or that He was born with a holy heart and with the law written in it, like Adam?


I don't believe Christ could be tempted by any evil within himself. So, He could only be tempted by Satan or one of his agents.

I think Christ's experience was like ours, except that He never participated in sin. However, Christ bore our sin, which allowed Him to share in our experiences, which is born out in the Psalms. For example:



Basically (setting aside character) your theology has Christ and His experiences being as unlike ours as is possible, whereas mine is the reverse, which explains our respective emphases.

It's interesting that you could read something like Prescott's sermon and think you agree with it, when he was doing the same thing as I; emphasizing that Christ's experience was as like ours as possible. To do this, he emphasized over two dozen times that Christ took flesh (or a nature) like ours. As you point out, in your theology, this doesn't matter, as you see Adam's experience, in regards to temptation, before the fall as no different than ours. Yet Prescott (and the other "old guys") emphasized over and over again that Christ took our fallen nature so He could be tempted as we are. If there were no difference in our temptations due to having sinful flesh, such an emphasis would have been totally out of place.

So you think that Christ needed his heart to be renewed and the law written in it, like us? And at what point did this happen?

About the fact that Adam was placed under law:

"In the beginning God placed man under law, as an indispensable condition of his very existence. He was a subject of the divine government, and there can be no government without law." {ST, July 23, 1902 par. 8}

God, the great governor of the universe, has put everything under law. The tiny flower and the towering oak, the grain of sand and the mighty ocean, sunshine and shower, wind and rain, all obey nature's laws. But man has been placed under a higher law. He has been given an intellect to see, and a conscience to feel, the powerful claims of God's great moral law, the expression of what He desires His children to be. {ST, July 31, 1901 par. 1}

This can't mean "under the condemnation of the law."

God's mercies are new every morning. He didn't need it because of His sinning, of course, but He took our sinful nature and bore our sins. I don't think that Christ's experience was static, but I think He learned and grew.



This is apples and oranges. You responded to Colin:



Adam was not born "under the law" in the sense that Christ was born "under the law" in Galatians 4:4. "Under the law" in Gal. 4:4 means the same thing as "under the law" in Romans 6:15.

Also, Ellen White didn't say that Adam was "under the law" but that he was "placed under law," and similarly for us.

This happens at our conversion/new birth, that is, at a specific point in time.
And what makes you think that Adam's experience was static and that he didn't learn and grow?


This is your/Waggoner's opinion, which is different from what Ellen White says. Ellen White nowhere says that Christ was under the law in the sense of being condemned by the law, but she does say that when He came in human form He became subject to the law. This is more than clear.

It happens throughout our lives. Morning by morning new mercies we receive. Justification is not a one time thing.



Adam didn't need grace before he sinned. I meant that Christ learned and grew in grace. Adam learned and grew, of course, as the redeemed will in the new earth, but his unfallen experience was very unlike ours. I believe Christ's experience was like ours (not like unfallen Adam's), with the caveat, of course, that Christ, unlike us, never committed sin. However, Christ, bearing our sins, as well as our sinful flesh, needed grace to overcome, as we do.



No it's not. Ellen White endorsed Waggoner on the law in Galatians (See 1SM 234, 235.) Gal. 4:4 follows from Waggoner's view of the law in Galatians.

Have you read "The Gospel in Galatians"? This is available online. http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html

This pamphlet was passed out to the disciples in 1888. People often wonder what was taught there. By reading this pamphlet, one can get an idea, putting themselves in the delegates place, in a manner of speaking, and seeing what it was that Ellen White got so excited about.

Starting from the point of view that the law in Galatians is primarily the moral law, Waggoner's positions logically follow, as he explains in the pamphlet. Unfortunately, your reasoning is usually the same as Butler's on the points we discuss, and contrary to Waggoner's. You're on the wrong side, just like like with Donnell/Haskell.



Ellen White didn't do a commentary on Galations. That she didn't comment on this specific verse in a theological way isn't even worth mentioning. You treat her like she was a Bible Commentary, as if our understanding of Scripture depends upon her commenting on some verse. This wasn't her role, and she never claimed it.

Ellen White affirmed the same truths that Waggoner brings out in his exposition of Gal. 4:4, which are:

1)Christ bore our sins His whole life.
2)Christ came in our sinful flesh.

That Christ became a human being is of course clear. I'm glad Ellen White said this, so you can believe it.

That Christ was subject to the law is also true, even in the sense the Jews are, since He was a Jew. However, this has nothing to do with what Paul is saying in Gal. 4:4.

One more comment regarding Waggoner's "opinion," it wasn't simply an "opinion," but a well-reasoned argument. Waggoner explained why "under the law" in Gal. 4:4 means what it does.

The continuous work of conversion in our lives follows the one-time event of conversion/new birth, which happens at a point in time. So, was Christ born again? In this case, when? Is it your contention that He needed daily conversion, like us?


Hadn’t you said that he needed grace before sinning? Is this the same grace that Christ needed, or did Christ need saving grace, like us?


I’m not going to comment about that, for you already know my opinion.


For her comment to be "theological," what do you think she should say? Something like: "I'm now going to comment theologically on verse..."? That there is a clear reference to the verse in question is evident.

There's no reason to think conversion is a one time event. Just as one example, a person can be converted, fall away, and be re-converted. Also, this doesn't matter to the point I was making, which was that the law being written in our heart is not a one time thing, as you said.



Like us in the sense that He bore our sins and bore our sinful nature. Of course Christ never sinned, so He didn't need it for that reason.

Regarding Christ being born again, one needs to choose one words carefully (which we should do when talking about Christ at any time). When we are born again, we become a partaker of the divine nature. There was never a time when Christ was not a partaker of the divine nature, so if we consider born again as meaning being a partaker of the divine nature, being a child of God, there was never a time when this did not apply to Christ, once He was incarnated.



No.



I was using "grace" as you use the term.