Ellen White does not use the term “original sin,” but the concept is clearly present in her writings.

“These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death.” {13MR 14.1}

“Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death.” {9MR 236.1}

“Yet he [Seth] 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.” {ST, February 20, 1879 par. 1}


The HF movement was wrong both in its premises and conclusion, and Haskell failed to grasp everything that was involved in it. His rebuttal is completely different from that of Ellen White. She saw the full picture.


If you agree, how is it that you can equate what I say with what the HF movement said?


???
What do you think an internal temptation is? It’s the sinful thought/desire which constitutes the temptation.


The problem is not the desire itself, but the motivation behind the desire. Love pursues the good of the other, with self-control, concern, reason, and patience. In this context, it’s not wrong to desire to be able in the future to express your love also physically. Of course you still must guard your mind from undue thoughts and imaginations. However, lust is the thought of sex for the sake of sex. Sexual desire for its own sake is sexual desire stripped of the Creator's purpose and stolen from its moral context. You do not love the other person nor are you thinking of his/her good. Lust is a desire for sexual pleasure as an end in itself.


A desire for sex is not just a physical desire. As this Psychology page correctly points out, “hormones alone cannot cause sexual arousal. Psychological factors are also highly influential.”

They present the following psychological factors in sexual motivation:

1) Erotic stimuli: Both men and women can become sexually aroused by external and internal erotic stimuli. External erotic stimuli include sexually exciting material that is read, heard, or seen. Internal erotic stimuli include thoughts, fantasies, and memories of past sexual experiences. What is considered erotic varies according to the individual, historical period, and cultural context.
2) Desires: People have an infinite number of desires that influence the motivation for sex, including to procreate, to express love, to have physical enjoyment, to cope with difficult situations and emotions, to validate one’s desirability, and to do what peers do.
3) Cultural context: Having a strong influence on sexual behavior, cultures inform people about sexual scripts, or implicit rules that allow a person to judge the appropriate sexual behavior for a given situation. For example, people follow sexual scripts when deciding whether they should initiate sexual activity or wait to receive a partner’s advances.

In # 1), Christ protected Himself from external erotic stimuli, and certainly there wasn’t a place in His mind for the internal ones.
In # 2), the first three desires are excluded, since Christ didn’t have the goal to marry, and the last three are clearly selfish.
# 3) doesn’t apply.

I used to believe in original sin before I became an SDA and read "The Desire of Ages."



Here's what Haskell said:



Here's what Donnel said:



What Donnell said sounds to me like what you are saying. Christ had no tendencies to sin, and every tendency of sin that we have must be removed in order to be like Christ.

Haskell fought against this by pointing out that Christ took fallen nature, with its hereditary inclinations. Jones wrote several articles dealing with the theme of Christ's human nature, to deal with the HF issue. Waggoner spoke on the same question at the 1901 GCB. The Adventist church as a whole was fighting against this issue along the lines laid out by Haskell.

You're on the side of the question that the SDA's were fighting against.

Ellen White wrote:



Basically the issue is very simple. I don't know why I didn't I somehow didn't grasp that you believe in original sin. Donnell believed in the concept of original sin, but Prescott, Haskell, Jones, Waggoner, and the others fighting against the HF ideas did not. This was the line of attack they used against the HF doctrine.

I find it simply incredible that one can think that Ellen White actually believed in original sin, like Donnell did, and unlike the SDA's which were fighting against the HF ideas. I would think it clear that an argument founded on a false premise regarding original sin couldn't possibly be a sound argument. Given her feelings regarding sound arguments, it's hard to imagine how Ellen White would go along with what Haskell, Jones and Waggoner were doing.



I don't think they would have disagreed with anything you said. Basically you're both on the same page regarding original sin, which explains Haskell's reaction.



I would call something a "sinful thought" or "sinful desire" only if the will were involved.



This isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking if you are dating someone, and being around that person arouses a sexual desire, if that's a sin. Not a future desire to express love physically, but a present desire to do so.



I'm not asking about this.



Interesting! (about the hormones) I'm not surprised, though.



So this means "no," doesn't it? You don't believe Christ ever felt a desire for sex.

It also doesn't seem possible, in your way of thinking, that Christ could be tempted sexually (except indirectly, as in the form of a suggestion in the context of getting married and raising a family.)

Your welcome. I was hoping some of the quotes might be helpful.

Regarding the COL 69 quote, this says that when Christ's character is perfectly reproduced in His people, He will come and claim them as His own. This makes it clear this hasn't happened yet, since He hasn't come. The quote also says this is something Christ is waiting for, and that it is our privilege to hasten Christ coming, so this reproduction of Christ's character is not something God can cause to happen like turning on a light switch. It involves human cooperation.

So what is it that causes us His people to be like Christ in character? I believe it's "by beholding we become changed."

The final message to be given to the world is one regarding God's character. The whole time, Satan has been leading man into sin and rebellion by misrepresenting God's character. God's character is the heart of the Great Controversy. It is over this issue, I believe, that the 144,000 will be sealed. They will be absolutely convinced of the goodness of God, that He is exactly like Jesus Christ (which, of course, requires an understanding of what Christ was like).

I think this is why the SDA church was raised up; to proclaim the truth about God.

Can you tell me how you or I can show God's character? Give me practical illustration.

Ha, chap, what indeed were you thinking? Didn't QOD help define the New Theology? Isn't this what is being bantered about so engagingly?

William

Call it “original sin” if you will. The concept is just that a moral/spiritual sinful nature is transmitted, since Adam, from parents to children. This moral/spiritual sinful nature is condemned by God.

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

Romans 5 clearly teaches this. Ellen White says human beings are “born in sin.” If that wasn’t the case, babies wouldn’t need a Saviour.

Why didn’t you comment on the EGW quotes I posted? Again I have a couple of questions for you. Is it your contention that we aren't born with a sinful spiritual/moral nature? Isn't a sinful spiritual/moral nature condemned by God?


Ah, they wouldn't? So they would agree with me that it’s impossible to achieve holy nature by just removing sinful tendencies? And they would agree with me that they would only achieve holy flesh at Christ’s coming? You clearly aren’t being honest in your arguments and analyses, therefore there is no longer any basis for the discussion of this subject.


In my opinion this is mental adultery. I never had a desire to have sex at that moment before marriage. I understand things are more difficult for men, but is your contention that it’s impossible for a man not to have this kind of desire?


I don’t think He ever felt the desire to have sex with a specific person. I think it’s probable He was tempted in this area by Satan’s sinful suggestions.

William,

In case you are insterested, a discussion about the so-called "new theology" can be found here:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=29705&page=1

Ah, yes, quite kind, Rosengela. The thread is rather inactive but I noticed the last entry from a Kevin H. that introduced a list to help identify some of the New Theology's line of thinking, which to me, makes sense that our beliefs rarely stand apart from doctrinal systems.

In other words, we might find that if one believes in what approximates to "original sin," we shouldn't be surprised that that belief would be found juxtaposed alongside a set of beliefs. I'd be interested to know if Kevin H's list written by an Elder K. harmonizes with your theology.

Either way, the ideas presented on this thread are truly enlightening and certainly beneficial in solidifying one's own beliefs. Excellent job to all, I might add.



William

About human beings being born in sin, why don't you comment about the Ellen White's quotes I posted?

About my answers, they are there. Haven't you read them?

My apologizes, I didn't read your answers on that thread, Rosangela. However, I might take a peek at them at a later time.

Regarding those quotes, I might simply say, that unless one can produce a credible source refuting Zurcher's A Historical Survey of Adventist Thought on the Human Nature of Christ, Ellen White (and the church) was quite the postlapsarian.

That's all that perhaps matters, after splitting hairs ad infinitum, for those of us who are satisfied with the bigger picture. However, the hair-splitting can be quite enjoyable oftentimes. So do carry on!

William