This doesn't work for two reasons (at least). First of all, consider the historical situation. Ellen White was preaching with Jones and Waggoner. What did they preach? Here's an example:



Now someone hearing this being preached would reasonable be expected to ask a question like, "How could Christ have taken our fallen nature? Had He done so, He would have fallen to temptation, just like we do."

Your suggestion that they were actually asking, "How could Christ have yielded to temptation?" doesn't fit with what Jones and Waggoner preached. Actually, what you are suggesting is that they were asking "How could Christ have taken a nature which yielded to temptation?" which doesn't correspond to anything they were preaching.

A second problem is that her response doesn't make sense. She wrote:



If the point had been in relation to Christ not being able to be tempted, she would have said something like:



Instead she said that letters were coming to her affirming that Christ could not have come in out nature, because if he had, He would have fallen under the same temptations we fall under. In fact, many pre-lapsarians make this very argument, when hearing the preaching of Jones and Waggoner today, so it is not the least surprising that those hearing it then would have reacted the same.

Otoh, I've never heard anyone every respond to Jones and Waggoner's preaching the way you are suggesting, affirming that Christ could not have taken a nature which could have yielded to temptation. Indeed, I've never heard anyone ever have this question. I've heard the question raised that Christ could not have yielded to temptation, but never heard this issue in terms of Christ's nature.

That is, one might ask:

1.How could Christ have been tempted in all points as we are? If He had, He would need a Savior, just like we do.

But not:

2.How could Christ have taken a nature in which it was possible to yield to temptation? If He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations to ours.

The second is not a natural question to ask. Again, I've never heard anyone ask this.

(These two points have nothing to do with our present discussion, so I’ll reply to them separately and plan to drop the subject)


But this is in complete disagreement with what Ellen White says. This is the 3d or 4th time now in our discussions that I will quote the following passages:

“God's people are justified through the administration of the ‘better covenant,’ through Christ's righteousness. A covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word. ... God's attributes are imparted to man, enabling him to exercise mercy and compassion. ... It is not enough for us to have a general idea of God's requirements. We must know for ourselves what His requirements and our obligations are.” {12MR 53.4, 54.1}

“While they [the Jews] talked of the ‘ark of the covenant of the Lord,’ they ignored the real significance of the title. A covenant is an agreement between parties, based upon conditions. If Israel would obey the divine law and thus fulfill the conditions of their covenant with God, he would verify his promises to them. {ST, December 22, 1881 par. 5}

“This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfilment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him.”(RH June 23, 1904). {1BC 1103.11}

Waggoner still says:

“God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them.”

This is in disagreement with the Bible. If the covenants and the promises were one and the same thing, Paul wouldn’t have made a distinction between the two:

Romans 9:4 “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”

Hebrews 8:6 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The Bible is very clear here - a covenant is not a promise, it is established upon promises.


I didn’t suggest that. What I suggested is that EGW’s point has nothing to do with a pre-fall or post-fall condition. Her point is that a human nature which couldn’t yield to temptation wasn’t a human nature at all.
If this quote is at all related to what Jones and Waggoner were preaching, the only possibility is that they were preaching both that 1) Christ had taken a (post-fall) human nature and 2) that Christ couldn’t yield to temptation. Therefore, people didn’t find this coherent – and it isn’t. If you take the position that the letters were related to their preaching, what you stated - that by this time Waggoner had already changed his view about this – is not true.
In our previous discussion I cited several parallel quotes (I’ll include yours for comparison):

Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature. (1888 Mat. 533)

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. {DA 117.2}

“He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. His finite nature was pure and spotless, but the divine nature that led Him to say to Philip, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father’ also, was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties. But here 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 He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 182.3}

“But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and therefore we cannot overcome as He overcame. But this is not true; "for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. . . . For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Christ knows the sinner's trials; He knows his temptations. He took upon Himself our nature; He was tempted in all points like as we are. ... Those who claim that it was not possible for Christ to sin, cannot believe that He took upon Him human nature. Christ was actually tempted, not only in the wilderness, but all through his life. In all points He was tempted as we are, and because He successfully resisted temptation in every form, He gave us a perfect example.”{BEcho, November 1, 1892 par. 6, 7}

The ideas which are common in all the quotes, including yours, are: 1) Christ’s human nature, b) His possibility of yielding to temptation, or sinning, and 3) that He is a perfect example. All the quotes are from 1890 to 1892.

Ellen White says clearly that what God requires now is what He required in Eden, before Adam’s fall – perfect righteousness - no sin - practicing righteousness 100% of the time. So when someone is called righteous, this is what is meant. If you say that imputed righteousness is not involved in this, then you must assume a position similar to Mike’s – that Christians are righteous just part of the time - in which case you would be making what you accuse me of doing - an eisegesis of the text of John. Besides, the comparison with Christ would not hold true.

“He who (most of the time) practices righteousness is (most of the time) righteous, just as He is righteous.”


This is also explained in the quote I had provided:

“The third angel's message is the proclamation of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. The commandments of God have been proclaimed, but the faith of Jesus Christ has not been proclaimed by Seventh-day Adventists as of equal importance, the law and the gospel going hand in hand.”


I found only old light quotes. Another one says,

“Dr. Waggoner has opened to you precious light, not new, but old light which has been lost sight of by many minds, and is now shining forth in clear rays.” {1888 174, 175}

Regarding the two points you identified as not having to do with this discussion, I saw you said you were planning to drop it, so I didn't see the point in reading the points, much less responding. I'm not sure why you responded.



Pardon? Ellen White isn't Scripture, nor is she Jewish. I wrote:



If you wish to dispute this, you should present some argument based on Scripture, or by a Jewish person, or at the very least some statement by Ellen White asserting what a Jewish person believes "righteous" means.

Regarding imputed righteousness not being involved, I'm not saying this at all, but now we're just running around in circles because what you mean be imputed righteousness is a concept which John did not hold. No Jewish person had this concept. This is what the thing I quoted points out:





I don't understand your point here. This argument would apply as much to your position as mine. That is, if what John really meant by saying "he who does righteousness is righteous" that



then the comparison with Christ would fail, because otherwise you would have Christ having His imputed righteousness making up for his "unavoidable deficiencies."

Actually what John is saying is very simple: a righteous person is one who does righteous things, just like Christ did. The following translations bring out this thought:







Is what you have in mind is that the preaching of Jones and Waggoner was essentially the preaching of Luther, with the Sabbath and other SDA doctrines tacked on?



Keep looking! There's almost 2,000 endorsements, so there's a lot to go through, but one of them says that Jones and Waggoner brought us truth which we would not otherwise have had unless someone else had brought it.

Again, these old light quotes were written to try to set off prejudice, not ignite it. They were coming at it from the angle of "this is something new and scary," so she trie to smooth these fears. You're coming at it from the standpoint of "There's nothing needed here, no need to consider what these men are presenting" which is a different point of view from what she was addressing in these particular quotes.

For the benefit of those who haven't followed our previous discussions and are interested in the subject.


Pardon? Waggoner is also not Scripture nor Jewish, and you are trying to prove that his concept is correct and agrees with that of Ellen White. That's why I quoted Ellen White.


Just from the top of my mind:
Scripture:

In abolute terms nobody is righteous:
Psalms 143:2 Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for no man living is righteous before thee.

Ellen White:
“In ourselves we are sinners; but in Christ we are righteous." {1SM 394.1}


Only if he didn’t know his Bible, for “justifying” as declaring righteous is a biblical concept:

Deuteronomy 25:1 If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,

Also a Pauline concept:

Romans 5:18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. [justification as the opposite of condemnation]


No, the comparison is just in terms of righteousness 100% of the time.


What I have in mind is what the quote says: The third angel's message is the proclamation of the commandments of God and the faith of [in] Jesus Christ [as the sinner’s only hope of salvation].
It is the law and the gospel as we find them in the Bible. What we are discussing is what the Bible really says.


No need to do that. The search engine does that for me. I typed “Waggoner” and “new light” and found no quotes saying that Waggoner brought any new light. Why don't you try? Perhaps you have more luck.

Rosangela, did any of the points I brought up make sense to you?

If you're really interested in them, why not continue the discussion?



Pardon? Here's what I wrote:



What does this have to do with Ellen White or Waggoner?



This is basically saying the same thing as this, isn't it?



I don't see how your answer is responsive to my point. First of all, I've not said anything about "in absolute terms." I don't know why you're phrasing things in a completely different way than I am.



Once again, I've not asserted anything for which this should be an answer. I've pointed out many times that the only righteousness there is is the righteousness of Christ. All our righteousness is as filthy wags.

Back to the point I was making. I presented evidence that the Jewish concept of righteousness was not one of obeying the law perfectly for the whole of one's life. I've asked you to present evidence that they had this concept. I don't see how you can get from "Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for no man living is righteous before thee." to "The Jewish concept of righteousness is that one has kept the law perfectly for the entirety of one's life."

The Jewish concept of "righteous" is



No Jewish person had the concept of "righteous" as meaning "someone who kept the law perfectly his whole life." John's statement "He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous" is a typical Jewish statement.



Yes, Pauline, and yes in the O.T., but not as Calvin or Agustine taught it.





What comparison? My point is that the logic you are trying to apply would fail just as much to your argument as much as it would to mine, for the reason I pointed out.

Anyway, the point is moot, because John was not speaking in these terms, "absolute" as you call it. John was simply saying that a person who does righteousness is righteous. He wasn't saying "A person who has righteousness imputed to Him by Christ to make up for his deficiencies is righteous, even as He is righteous." Indeed, how does this even make sense?

This translation brings out John's point nicely:





Do you understand that this quote means something different than how I put your understanding? That is, do you disagree with my characterization? If so, in what way?

Regarding "new light," here are a couple of statements:





Here is a related statement:



I still don't understand how you can believe Ellen White to be a prophet, and have a view of righteousness by faith which is so much at odds with what Waggoner or Jones taught. If I take a book like "The Glad Tidings" or "Christ and His Righteousness" or "Articles on Romans" or "The Consecrated Way to Perfection", to name one of Jones, and randomly quoted 10 paragraphs, you'd probably disagree with at least 7 or 8 of them.

I didn’t say I’m interested in these points; I said I replied for the benefit of those who may be interested in them. In fact, I have nothing else to say in relation to them. What I said in my last post (and in the preceding ones) is what I had said in previous discussions. Besides, these points are completely unrelated to the subject we are discussing.


It has much to do. If Ellen White is a true prophet, she cannot contradict the Bible. And if she said that God requires perfect righteousness – no sin - and if this idea of perfect righteousness is foreign to the Bible, as you are saying, then she is contradicting the Bible. Do you think she is?


Yes, basically. In a sense all are sinners and, therefore, not righteous.


I didn’t say that “the Jewish concept of righteousness is that one has kept the law perfectly for the entirety of one’s life.” I said that there is a sense in the Bible (and, by extension, to Jews) in which no one is righteous before God. In a sense we are righteous, but in a sense we aren’t.


You said Calvin but quoted something mentioning Luther. I understand you mean Luther. However, while the quote says Luther was wrong, Ellen White says,

“The great doctrine of justification by faith, so clearly taught by Luther... “{GC 253.3}

I would have to analyze what the author says with more attention, but a superficial reading of the text makes me both disagree with the author and wonder how you can agree with him. If God doesn’t give or bestow His righteousness to the human agent, there is no room for either imputed or imparted righteousness, and your view collapses.


Huh? The comparison made in the verse: “... is righteous as He is righteous.”
In your view the Christian is righteous part of the time, while Christ is righteous 100% of the time. In my view there is no such a problem.


In my opinion Ellen White was not speaking of details – whether this or that was similar to Luther’s preaching or different from it. She was concerned with the message itself – Christ as the sinner’s only hope of salvation and the law without Christ as only bringing condemnation and death – the main points of Waggoner’s preaching. This was what the church needed at the time, and what it needs today in the practical life of its members.


She does say that “light has come to us,” but I don’t see her saying it was new light.

Mike, before I reply, I would like to know if when you are abiding in Jesus you consider that your obedience is perfect. For instance, do you consider that you love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength, and that you love your neighbor as yourself?

No, not the points, the people! You said you responded for the benefit of people. I'm saying if you're really interested in them, why not continue the discussion?



But you were the one who brought up these points, weren't you?



Ellen White is not Jewish. She is writing from a different culture. She expresses herself much differently than a Jew at the time of Christ or before would. Not only did she express herself differently, she thought differently. The fact that she thought and expressed herself differently than the Jews of many centuries ago does not mean she is contradicting the Bible.

My point was that no *Jew* had the concept that "righteous" meant "keeping the law perfectly for your entire life." I don't believe you can produce a scintilla of evidence to support this idea. I've presented several different arguments to show this is not the case, that the Jewish idea of "righteous" was what John stated, namely one who acted justly.



We were discussing 1 John 3:7, and you said:



I've been arguing that this is not what John meant, it couldn't have been, because no Jew (and John was a Jew) had this understanding of the word "righteous." The statement that "he who does righteousness is righteous," depicts a typically Jewish understanding of the word "righteous," and is easy to understand. It neither necessitates nor permits the idea that the law is being kept perfectly for one's entire life. He simply says, "He who does righteousness is righteous." He explains his meaning:



He who does righteousness is righteous, even as Christ is righteous. How? By giving his life for others, like Christ did. By showing compassion, taking care of his brother. This is what it means to be righteous, according to John.



There it is! The one endorsement of Luther! Trumping the nearly 2,000 of Waggoner.



The author is a well known N.T. scholar, perhaps the best known. He's not arguing that God doesn't give or bestow His righteousness to the human agent, but that the concept of imputed righteousness which you are discussing is not a concept that existed among 1st century Jews. This was just one source among several I was mentioning to bring out that the statement of John's that "he who does righteousness is righteous," could not have the idea that you expressed, which involved the idea that "righteous" meant someone who kept the law perfectly his whole life.

If John had meant this, then you would be right, if he called someone "righteous" the person wouldn't really be righteous. But this isn't what John meant by "righteous," which is born out by observing the context of the chapter, or by taking into account how "righteous" was understood by Jews.



John isn't talking about this. It's not germane to what John is saying. He's saying a righteous person is one who acts justly, who takes care of his brother, who does righteousness, like Christ did.



First of all, although this was something Waggoner spoke of, to characterize these as these as the main points of Waggoner's preaching is unfounded. This can be verified simply by looking at Waggoner's works.

All Adventist's believed that Christ was the sinner's only hope of salvation, and that the law without Christ only brought condemnation and death. This wasn't a point of controversy between Waggoner and Butler.

A great thrust of Waggoner's preaching was that faith in Christ made the believer obedient to the law of God. EGW characterized this as faith in Christ, which was made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.

This is a typical statement:



Another:





If she said it was new light, that would have played in the hands of those protesting the light, as new light would mean light that is not in the Bible. So she didn't say that. She said it was light from God, light that we needed, light that we wouldn't have had, unless someone else had brought it.

To see that what Jones and Waggoner preached was not a teaching that we had had before is easy to see; just read from their works!