Two things: 1) What is "sin"?

If you consider sin to be just an act, then the sentences would mean, "Adam came forth from the hand of his Maker without the taint of an act of sin." "The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without the taint of an act of sin; he was in the image of God."

If you think this makes sense, how am I going to convince you that it doesn't? But if sin is more than an act, if it is also our nature, these texts clearly refer to Adam's nature.

2) Does "sin" taint? The text says it does.

Good day, R. Yes, this would be what you would think.

And, yes, you've been recently reading what Evangelical Adventists have written regarding Ellen White's theology.

And, yes, I must also agree that she was influenced by her environment, including her adaptation of minor nuances from contemporary authors.

However, in the end, and this is boiling it all down, can we truly coalesce EGW's Sanctuary/IJ doctrine with Covenant Theology?

So then it is here, right here, where EGW and Reformationist theology necessarily divide and become permanently polarized.

Ask Ford.

William

You are mistaken, William. I don't read anything at all about Ellen White or about what others think her theological positions are. I just read Ellen White.

And what exactly in Covenant Theology do you think disagrees with the Sanctuary/IJ doctrine?

Are you serious? Or are you simply testing my theological IQ or mental acuity? Humor me.

William

Was referring to the source you quoted from the QODC website.

William

Ah, just caught my mistake. Saw "andrews.edu" and assumed prematurely.

William

No, I'm serious, but I'm referring to the main framework of Covenant Theology and not to nuances in the understanding of righteousness by faith (I'm not with Calvin or the evangelicals about this, btw).

Are you having problems reloading Maritime. I am. It's loading extremely slow today. Strange. Anyway.

Why would you even suggest CT teaches our IJ doctrine?

I'm actually trying to understand your insinuation, but am struggling to grasp any connection between the two. Help?

William

R, I'm still scratching my head. No way can CT or any other theological system allow for the blotting out of sins!

And, no, "perfectionism" according to the CT framework, is not what were dealing with here. So, please, don't come with that angle, or we'll be here all day deconstructing definitions. Boring. Ha.

Adventism still adheres to "sinless perfection," but certainly not the way it is defined by Covenant theologians.

Again, why the insinuation? You should know better than that.

William

I was just going to comment about that. I'm having problems, too.


You suggested that CT has something to do with the IJ doctrine (post #112065). It's like saying that the Sabbath has something to do with the IJ doctrine. Well, it does, for all doctrines are interrelated, but there is no direct connection between the two.

This is off topic, but in case you are interested, this is its main framework, and how it agrees with what EGW says. From a post of mine in an old thread, Destruction of the Wicked. Post #13507, May 23 2005.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=13488#Post13488