Then at least anwer the question which is relative to your framework. I'll repost it for your convenience:



Is this your position?

The framework is an assertion from the SOP. Here it is again:

Given the parts I emphasized, it should be clear that this passage applies only to true believers, not to sinful man in general. Furthermore, this was in a published article, not a personal letter to an individual.

So we ask: What does "corrupt channels of humanity" mean, since it defiles our prayers? Did Jesus have such "corrupt channels of humanity" defiling His prayers?

I assume it is not more palatable to you than it is to me to consider that Christ's prayers were defiled and needed an external righteousness to make them acceptable to God. But that would mean that there is a significant difference between Jesus and God's people - the good guys. That is also unpalatable to postlapsarians, which R and I are not. This is the weakness of your position, which we are trying to point out. It is not surprising that postlapsarians generally keep this quote (and others similar to it) beyond the 10-foot-pole radius.

However, I know that D. Priebe answered it in one of his sermons. (I'm not sure if others have.) He said that "corrupt channels of humanity" signifies actual, committed sins. Obviously, those do corrupt us, and defile our prayers. Moreover, actual sin is something that obviously would not apply to Jesus.

But that interpretation comes with its own set of problems, as I'm sure is immediately obvious to you. I'll have to talk to Priebe about it the next time he comes in to town.

If I may add....

That would be willful sin, since postlapsarians generally believe that sin comes only with volition. Therefore, one who knows nothing of God's requirements (e.g. a jungle person) would not need Christ's intercession at all. Correct?

This would depend on how broadly sin were defined.



Since Christ took "our sinful nature," it can't mean that, since then He would have had "corrupt channels of humanity" as well. It must mean sin.



Indeed! Jesus Christ never sinned.



No, postlapsarians don't find it "unpalatable" that Jesus Christ is significantly different than we are. If He weren't, He could be our Savior, could He? Surely we need a Savior who is divine and sinless, which we are not.



The weakness of your position is that it in no way corresponds to historical reality. I've detailed this to you on many occasions. You've not so much as responded to it.

You have no explanation for the following:

1.Ellen White endorsed Jones and Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith, which is totally, completely, diametrically opposed to the concept of righteousness by faith.

2.Ellen White endorsed a postlapsarian sermon by W. W. Prescott on the very subject that Christ took sinful flesh.

3.Haskell, who was working with Ellen White at the time to confront the Holy Flesh teachings, read from "The Desire of Ages," and said of Christ's humanity, "This is fallen humanity, with its hereditary inclinations."

4.You agree with Donnell (promoter of the Holy Flesh ideas) on the principle pillar of their theology, and disagree with the SDA leaders who disputed their teachings on the basis that the tenants of original sin are false.

5.Ellen White specifically endorsed Jones and Waggoner's teaching on the subject of Christ's humanity.

I'll stop at 5, since this is a nice number.

Regarding the quote, it supports the post-lapsarian position. If Christ's intercession is necessary because of sinful flesh, then the 144,000 could not stand before a Mediator unless they rid themselves of sinful flesh.

It's interesting that those who oppose the traditional teachings of the SDA church do not quote from "The Desire of Ages."



No. Are you familiar with Robert Wieland's ideas on this subject? (specifically on Christ's message to the Laodicean church).

Too sweet, Elle. Thank you for the delicious compliment, but the truly gifted "writters" are presently writting on this thread. (Sorry, Elle, I couldn't resist!) And you know who you are. So be humble.

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

I'm not sure what you meant by “future,” Elle, but at least we are positive what Ratzlaff meant in Cultic Doctrine regarding his gospel (RBF) and its connection to the investigative judgment. And for him the two appeared out of harmony:


Ratzlaff rightly expressed that one's belief about salvation had everything to do with how one held our sanctuary doctrine.

This is maybe why he was so antagonstic toward Ellen White, something I believe you clearly disagreed with.

Must run, but for the others discussing “corrupt channels,” someone graciously sent me the article Salting Corrupt Channels by David Qualls: http://tinyurl.com/c8hwxp

William

So "God's people" - the "true believers" as 2SM puts it - still indulge in sin?


Do God's people, those born again, continue to sin? Or is their need of intercession due to previous sin which they have already given up?


Some do. MM does.

Yes, we need a sinless Saviour.


But I don't think the historical reality matches the current errors of today's postlapsarians. Would the "transformation of nature" the SOP mentions be considered a "difficult quote" by Jones, Waggoner, EGW, Prescott, etc.? Yet many current postlapsarians balk at it.


That's true. However, it's not the sinful flesh that's the problem. It's your sinful desires. Even Andreasen taught that such desires must be eradicated in the 144k. (It's in the "Last Generation" chapter.)


Maybe because it's talking about something else?

Why don't you guys quote from Steps to Christ? Isn't getting closer to Jesus our most important job? Look at every mention of human nature in that book and you'll see it in its import in soteriology, rather than Christology. It is a vastly different view than postlapsarians generally have.


I don't know if I'm familiar with that. Care to elaborate?

If one has no knowledge of God's requirements, and therefore does not willfully disregard His law, why isn't that person sinless? Why would he need Christ's blood?

The article does not address the issue of the "corrupt channels" requiring Christ's covering blood. All it does is move the cleansing into the believer's body. It doesn't even explain what "passing through" means if the blood is sprinkled in the believer's heart.

In any case, the question remains: Did Jesus have such "corrupt channels" that needed cleansing?

Also, the last time I discussed this issue with David, he was not able to address the problems regarding the difference between imputation and impartation of righteousness. But that was a while back, so I don't know if he's had any new insights since then.

This is too cryptic for me.



Neither of these questions makes sense to me. Surely you've known some born again people. Do they sin? If the need for intercession were due to sins already given up, then how could the 144,000 stand before God without a Mediator?



I'm pretty sure MM agrees with me on the points I raised here.



This isn't really dealing with the historical difficulties of the pre-lapsarian position, is it? But this isn't new. You never have. And this is the real weakness of your position.

Regarding your point regarding balking at the transformation of the nature, why would postlapsarians balk at this? Of course our natures must be transformed. This seems rather like a red herring.

It seems to me that everything follows from the position one takes on original sin. If the original sin idea is true, then clearly Christ could not have taken our sinful nature nor come in sinful flesh, however you prefer to put it.



Surely Andreasen wasn't teaching that our sinful flesh needs to be eradicated.



Well, this made me chuckle. No, I don't think that's it.



There's no book that discusses Christology to the extent that "The Desire of Ages" does, which isn't surprising, given its subject matter.



This talks a bit about it: http://www.1888mpm.org/blog/corporate-repentance-laguna-niguel-seminar



What does "need Christ's blood" mean? Why does anyone "need Christ's blood"?

I meant futur by "The good news of the gospel is that the Father has already qualified us, who believe in Christ, to share in the eternal inheritance in Christ"
In Paul's word in

Yes, I agree with the quote above and that Traditional Adventism does not understand this. It took 40 years(in 1888) for some of our pioneers to understand it. But the message did not prevail, only within some individuals. Regardless, it was God's willing and we weren't ready for it. The traditional focuss of the IJ is definetly out of harmony with the Gospel and it's shameful that our Church can't embrace it. It is more natural for us to depend on our works, than on Christ.
He aimed his antagonism without fully understanding the dark powers that worked behind our history to quench the gospel. And Ellen definetly wasn't behind or with those evil powers. I agree that she only fully understood it in 1888, but that was God's will. The prince of darkness was working in some other men before, during, and after 1888, to quench this truth, but Ellen was not part of that.

To understand what? I'm a bit confused about your comment regarding the 1888 message. My impression, based on your comments, is that your thinking is very different than the message presented by the 1888 messengers.