"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.