T:We can't receive pardon for sins we haven't committed yet, because pardon involves the recognition of having sinned.

E:Yes we can, if we walk in the spirit of Christ, then we have that assurance.

I didn't say anything about assurance, but about pardon. We cannot receive pardon for something we haven't done yet. If you're married, and you know your spouse, then you may know that you will be forgiven for whatever you may do in the future that hurts him, because you know him. But you can't receive pardon for something you might do in the future unless you do it. You can have the assurance that you will be pardoned when the need arises, which is where assurance comes in, but to receive pardon there's a sequence of events, which runs along the lines of sin, recognition of sin, request for pardon, acceptance of pardon granted.

We know, because of God's character, that any pardon we need will be available should we desire it.

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Your missing the point in regards to future, because your focus is on your performance and believe that you need to confess all sins.

Do you have the fear that maybe you forgot to confess one of them? How about your heart wasn't in a contrite enough state when you confessed?

When you have the mind of Christ in you, He will give you assurance, peace, victory and there's no more condemnation.

Pardon/assurance it comes to the same thing. You're being too technical and the focuss moves unto what you have to do(law/fleshy oriented .... moving into righteousness through works). If you walk that way, you're constantly moving out of faith. With Christ mind in you, let Him deal with the details, and hold onto the Biblical promises that is made through the death and life of Christ.

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” (John 6:28-29)

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?

The article is a corrective, which means that it is not intended to give a complete, full-orbed, comprehensive, all-around view of a subject.

By definition, it addresses and seeks to correct a particular viewpoint—a viewpoint that is itself a lopsided view of truth (that is, the view that the article seeks to correct).

The article clearly outlines the issue it addresses. As far as the “difference between imputation and impartation of righteousness,” the article clearly upholds the need for both.

Past sins require a legal declaration of righteousness (imputed). Present righteousness is imparted to us so we can live the life of Christ. It is Christ living out His life within us (Gal. 2:20).
 
The article is in harmony with the following quote, which should forever settle the issue in Adventists’ minds:

"Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us.” {SC 63.1}

The ground of our salvation (hope) is twofold: imputed and imparted righteousness.

Again this is brought out further in the next quote. Note the imputed righteousness for past sins and the imparted for ongoing sanctification.
 
"The law requires righteousness—a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty. Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ. God can "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:26." {DA 762.2}
 
Can you see the twofold action above—imputed righteousness for past sins, imparted for the ongoing present. And only thus can God be just in justifying the sinner.

Arnold asks, Did Jesus have corrupt channels? The answer is, No. Why? Because he never sinned. That is the difference between Him and us.

And this gets to the very issue of the definition of sin and its cure.

What are the corrupt channels that Ellen White refers to? Is it the fallen nature of man or the carnal, sinful nature that man develops by choosing sin over righteousness?

Christ had the same nature we are born with, including all its inherited weaknesses and tendencies toward pleasing the flesh.

The difference between Him and all other humans is that He never once gave in to the pull of the flesh. Thus no corrupted channels.

Sorry Tom for not listening to you and not addressing your questions. I really don't want to go any further. Nothing personal, it's just I'm not capable nor want to debate these.

I believe Jesus inherited "a form and nature" like us. I also believe He came with no propensity to sin. Jesus was not inclined to sin.

Jesus Christ also did not have a "bent to evil."

Are we equating a bent to evil as evil itself, or the pulls of sinful flesh?

Paulson bellowed that "a bent toward evil is not the same as evil itself. Nowhere does Inspiration equate the two as one and the same. Both Scripture and Ellen White are clear that such a bent does not of itself constitute sin."

Just making an observation.

William