Of course, since he left the church in 1981, after concluding that the IJ teaching was incorrect, one year after the Ford crisis in 1980. He, as many others at the time, was highly influenced by Ford's views.

True! Do you know of anyone who thinks otherwise?


Again, all temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings. Do you agree?


Not according to James. Even Jesus was enticed with evil. “Though enticed to evil, He refused to depart in a single instance from the strictest truth and rectitude.” {LHU 77.6} The "affections and lusts" that tempt us from within are, at least initially, nothing more than a temptation to be unlike Jesus. "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts; but the brutish part of your nature takes the lines of control and guides the spiritual. This is God's order reversed. {4T 365.3}

Ellen also wrote: "We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul." {AH 126}

She goes on to say:


As you can see, there is no stopping place, no point we can reach where we no longer have to rein in the "affections and lusts" of the flesh. We shall have to do battle every step of the way. "Paul knew that his warfare against evil would not end so long as life should last. {AA 314.3}

"So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained. Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience. {AA 560.3}

This insight seems to strike at the root of your theology. Do you see what I mean?


How do you become consciously aware of the fact you are being tempted with a sinful suggestion? Also, are these suggestions factual in nature, that is, devoid of any passion or emotion?


Does this mean temptations are bypassed and the person is instantly guilty of sinning? Or, are they guilty on an ongoing basis by virtue of the fact such sinful propensities exist within them?


Were you tempted or were you already guilty of sinning?


How can it appeal it to you if the propensity is completely nonexistent? Why do such suggestions require analyzing? BTW, I am very grateful to Jesus that He has delivered you from the bondage of soap operas. I know you’re life is better off without them.


Are you saying we are not absolutely victorious on a certain issue until we reach a point where we can no longer be tempted by it? Also, do you think you were guilty of sinning even though you sincerely renounced watching soap operas? And, it what sense was it an “idol in your heart”?


Do you think we are guilty of sinning in the sight of God even if we do not act out the sinful propensities that reside within us? That is, do you think we are guilty of sinning simply because we possess inherited sinful propensities?

According to what you’ve been sharing lately, don’t you think the 144,000 would consist of Christians who have completely killed out all the sinful propensities they inherited at birth?

William, You are indeed an impressive writter.

Yes what Paul and Luther knew and believed clearly, is now very obscure.

EGW perpetrated! Those words are not sound. I don't think there was any other person in the SDA Church that I know, that consistently committed her life to Christ as Ellen. I wouldn't be able to say this about most of our leaders and if there were someone to label as perpetrators, it wouldn't be Ellen. Far from it. I belief that she wasn't perfect, she grew in understanding and I have a strong hunch that her writings was tempered with. If Ratzlaff is saying that about Ellen, well, he's not in the truth.

Yes, but not because of EGW faults.


Yes I believe this is a very important Biblical truth that rigteousness by faith is also present and futur as it is written.
and the investigative judgment is still very well valid in this context.

Yes I do see Brinsmead and Ford guiding Ratzlaff and whoever wants to find a belief that satisfies their "idollogy" That's why we need to be born again and have "not I that lives, but Christ in me". If we don't, well, we'll miss the only boat.

Yes, this is what Ellen White says:

The prayer and praise and confession of God's people ascend as sacrifices to the heavenly sanctuary. But they ascend not in spotless purity. Passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by the righteousness of the great High Priest, they are not acceptable by God. Christ gathers into the censer the prayers, the praise, and the sacrifices of his people, and with these he puts the merits of his spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the incense of Christ's propitiation, our prayers, wholly and entirely acceptable, rise before God, and gracious answers are returned. {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 12}

But what is your opinion? That at that time the corrupt channels of humanity will no longer be corrupt, and that prayer and praise will ascend to God in spotless purity?

If sinful natures cause us to be tainted, and being tainted necessitates Jesus' work as Intercessor, and the 144,000 must stand before God without an Intercessor, it should be evident that there's a problem here.

I don't believe in original sin. What corrupts the channels of humanity is sin, not sinful nature. Given this is the case, if the 144,000 are not sinning, they wouldn't need Christ's work as intercessor due to their corrupt human channels.

Yes, it does. Those who believe in original sin think that simply having a temptation from within is sin. And similarly for hereditary inclinations. So Haskell must have been wrong when he said that Ellen White was speaking of Christ's taking "fallen humanity, with its hereditary inclinations." Original sin does not allow for this.

What Haskell called "hereditary inclinations" you call "sinful desires" and "sinful thoughts." What I (and SDA's or Haskel's time) would call a "sinful desire" or "sinful thought" is one which involves volition. "The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." This is the same thought. The flesh can generate temptations, but there is no sin involved (i.e., acting contrary to the will of God, or transgressing the law) until the will comes into play.



Sin comes into play when the will enters into the picture:





I'm saying sin involves the will.

Mike, you are simply being contradictory in your statements. I mentioned confessing unholy desires because you had said in your post #110462:

<<Yes, it is a sin when I have an unholy desire and it must be confessed. However, there is a difference between "having" an unholy desire versus an unholy thought and feeling tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus. Do you agree?>>

So, what I understand you to be saying is that some sinful desires constitute sin and some don’t, and that you decide which is which, and which must be confessed and which doesn’t. If you consider it was “just a temptation” you don’t need to confess it; if you think you went too far, then you confess it. You evaluate your desires by a totally subjective standard.
By the way, “animal propensities” are physical desires/needs, and they shouldn’t be equated with sinful propensities and sinful desires. Ellen White says that Satan reveals in his character all sinful tendencies/propensities, and he certainly doesn’t have animal propensities.


What we see in the Bible is that Satan tried to attract Jesus to evil through things that weren’t in themselves sinful; it was the circumstances that made them sinful.


I disagree. New circumstances may bring to light weaknesses of character previously unsuspected of. Sinful tendencies do pass away, but this is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit; at the moment you cease to abide in Christ, they can come back; our memories are not erased.

“Genuine conversion is needed, not once in years, but daily. This conversion brings man into a new relation with God. Old things, his natural passions and hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, pass away, and he is renewed and sanctified. But this work must be continual; for as long as Satan exists, he will make an effort to carry on his work. He who strives to serve God will encounter a strong undercurrent of wrong. His heart needs to be barricaded by constant watchfulness and prayer, or else the embankment will give way; and like a mill-stream, the undercurrent of wrong will sweep away the safeguard. No renewed heart can be kept in a condition of sweetness without the daily application of the salt of the word. Divine grace must be received daily, or no man will stay converted.” {RH, September 14, 1897 par. 9}


Because an unholy thought (not desire) enters your mind. Devoid of emotions? No. You can find it disgusting. Or, you can even find it pleasing (if it isn’t intrinsically wrong). For instance, Jesus must have felt the suggestion to eat bread agreeable. But it’s only after you analyze the suggestion that the desire arises. A desire in Christ’s case would have been, “I wish to eat bread now,” which would probably be followed by the decision, “I will eat bread now.”


I like the following view about the stages of temptation:

Attention – consideration – desire – decision – planning – action

When do you fall into the temptation? When do you commit the sin (action)? When do you make the decision? The tenth commandment says that the desire is already a sin. So, the first two stages don’t constitute sin, but at the 3d stage, when you desire the sin, it’s as if you had already committed it. When there is a sinful propensity, I would say the first two stages are bypassed, and you already begin at the 3d stage.


As an external temptation, and no longer as an internal temptation.


I’m saying that unbroken victory means never broken.


I mean I fell into this sin with some regularity, which can hardly be called victory. It was an idol because I loved it.


To a certain extent, yes (as explained above in the stages of temptation).


I understand some will have less time to prepare than others. I also believe all the sinful propensities the person is aware of will be overcome.

So what is it that corrupts the human channels of true believers, making them need Christ's imputed righteousness? Are you saying that these "true believers" are indulging in willful sin?

How was this problem solved before the ministry in the heavenly sanctuary started?


So if you don't sin on a given day, you don't need the work of Christ as intercessor on that day and your prayers ascend to God spotless.

Rosangela and Arnold, I don't buy the whole framework you guys operate in, so please don't ask me questions coming from that framework. I'm pointing out a weakness I see given the presuppositions you guys are working from (or, at least, that I perceive you are working from).