Why are you asking this? Waggoner wrote this.

What did the blood signify?

"This prefigured the slaying of the Son of God and the efficacy of His blood, which was shed for the salvation of the sinner. It was a sign that the household accepted Christ as the promised Redeemer. It [the household] was shielded from the destroyer's power."

Simple. But, again, no insinuation of original sin being the antecedent for this event.

William

1) It would seem that EGW's thought was the the obedience of the parents resulted in their children being sealed in safety. The obedience of one provides safety to another. As Paul said, by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Consider this angle. What if Daddy faithfully killed the sacrifice, painted the blood on the lintels, prepared the bread and lamb for the meal, but little Johnny decided to stay out that night? Would little Johnny have been safe? No. Little Johnny needed to stay by Daddy's side, inside the house under the covering of the blood. Daddy's obedience is key, but little Johnny's obedience was also required. So it is with Jesus and us.


But if the kids were innocent, why do they need to be covered at all?


This quote shows that. If the children were not guilty, they would need no covering. Just like the guiltless angels, they can live in the sight of God without a Mediator. The fact that they need a Mediator should tell us that they had something that needed mediating.

I think that's what R's been trying to get across.

I know Waggoner wrote it.

I'm asking because I want to know if you think it applies to Jesus.

Yes, of course. But we couldn't have Ellen White officially confirming Prescott's Sinful Flesh sermon, and then suddenly have her cryptically teach Original Sin in her rendition of the Exodus.

It seems too bold to attempt to manipulate her harmartiology that forcefully.

I just don't see Rosangela's twist, though I certainly appreciate the effort.

William

Why? My point in quoting this is that Waggoner is a postlapsarian. This quote of his doesn't agree with the broad sweeping statements you've been making about postlapsarians. Indeed, virtually everything you said regarding postlapsarians is not true of Waggoner, perhaps everything.

Do you think it's possible that the statement, "our life is sin" can apply to Christ? If so, how? If you don't see how it's possible, you don't really need to ask my opinion of this, do you?

Did you at all read "What is the Sanctuary?" "In Holy of Holies," or "Facing Life's Record"?

The saved will always be covered by sweet Jesus in some manifestion, "for the glory of God did lighten it [New Jerusalem], and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. Rev. 21:23-24.

Now, if there was no Ellen White and either you or Rosangela turned out to be legitimate biblically-inspired prophets, and you taught me Heppenstall, Whidden, and Ford's version of the Gospel, I would respond with, "Great, where shall I sign!"

No kidding. Who else could I possibly trust!?

However, because we do have a prophet who multiple times sanctioned the christology and sorteriolgy of "the messengers of the Lord" in multiple ways, I've chosen to sign their dotted line.

Smarts and surety for divine revelation first, so no offense. Just saying common sense should guide the common man. Yes?

William

This made me think of things from EGW's perspective. She said:



She said this before the Lord had revealed anything special to her. That is, she spoke this as a person listening to a sermon would react. She heard something that stirred her heart.

To me, her words struck me as saying, "Hey! Come take a look at this!" Reading Jones and Waggoner's writings struck a chord with me, as it did with her. That she endorsed them didn't really change things my reaction to their writings. However, it serves as a vehicle to point to what they said, and hope others will receive the same blessing.

No doubt!

But notice what precisely she is reminded of when hearing him: "the matchless charms of Christ," which necessarily jibed with her doctrine of sin, man, and salvation.

Who says postlapsarians don't emphasize Christ's sin-conquering, death-defying charms!?

"This is what I have been trying to present before your minds."

What exactly were they presenting that highlighted the "charms of Christ" for EGW? See Christ Our Righteousness, The Third Angel's Message (GCB 1893), et cetera.

"When Brother Waggoner brought out these ideas in Minneapolis, it was the first clear teaching on this subject from any human lips I had heard."

Sold.

William

Also an interesting thing is when she endorsed Prescott's sermon, she did so by saying that Prescott showed that the law could be obeyed. But that's not what Prescott talked about. He talked about Christ's taking sinful flesh. So there was a solid link in Ellen White's thinking that connected Christ's obedience in sinful flesh with our being able to obey the law.