Doesn't it say, right after where you stopped, "but Jesus Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh?" So wouldn'd the thought be that while there were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, or corrupt propensities or tendencies to evil, the flesh of Jesus Christ was another matter. Isn't this what Jones, Waggoner and Prescott taught as well?

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Christ's character or "moral/spiritual" aspect, as we know that Christ's own nature was sinless (He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature). Neither Jones, nor Prescott, nor Waggoner ever asserted there was something sinful with Christ's moral or spiritual nature or character, did they?

Regarding being born with a character, none of the quotes you presented say anything about this, do they? Isn't character developed?

For example:



Again:





The mental and moral powers do not constitute character, but are the building blocks to use to build a character. As she points out, "the seed must be planted before it can become a tree."

If the mind is the seed which is planted to form character, I don't see how this would apply to a new-born infant.

Regarding the quote about Adam, I think she was saying that Adam was created with a sinless nature whereas fallen human beings have sinful natures.

maybe you meant thoughts? if the mind is the garden then it seems thoughts, good or bad, would be the seed.

This is treating Jones and Waggoner's message as if it were simply a generic message of righteousness by faith. If this were the case, there would be no sense in the endorsements Ellen White being only towards them specifically, as many SDA's preached righteousness by faith. There was something special about their message specifically. For example:



Of note:

1.It was the Lord Himself who sent this message.
2.The message the Lord sent was not merely "precious," or even "very precious," or even "most precious."



Of note here, the message of Jones and Waggoner was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, showers from heaven of the latter rain. Ellen White never used this language for any other message than that brought by Jones and Waggoner.



I'm glad you recognize this. Hopefully you'll apply this quote more carefully in the future.



She wasn't. Her point was there were things which Waggoner presented which were different than what even she saw. She was encouraging the others to learn from Waggoner as she was:





No it's not. This is taking her comments out of context. Rather than taking sentences her and there, let's read the whole context.



This is a little before the part you quoted. She said IF she fully understood Waggoner's position, there were some things which did not harmonize with the understanding she had had on the subject. It should be easy to see this is a far cry where her saying Waggoner was wrong.



To correct Waggoner, she'd have had to know what Waggoner was teaching. Do you have any evidence that Ellen White knew of the error you are alleging? Regarding the human nature of Christ, there's no doubt she knew what Waggoner's view was, a view which she defended.



It was a cornerstone. She repeated over 400 times that Christ took our sinful nature, or fallen nature, or the nature of Adam the transgressor, or a nature degraded and defiled by sin, or similar phrases. It was one of her more frequent themes.





There are countless statements like these. This was one of her most frequent themes. She repeated these thoughts almost as often as she endorsed Jones and Waggoner!



"Just partially right." We have a consistent pattern here. You look to put Jones and Waggoner in as negative a light as possible, while I do the reverse. Ellen White did not write that Waggoner was "just partially right" but that he didn't have all the light on the subject at that time. Some time later she wrote:



I hope some day this resistance will end.



Perhaps. Perhaps not.



Do you think this is as clear as sunlight?



Regarding Jones and Waggoner, Ellen White wrote that they brought "showers from heaven of the latter rain." Of their opponents she wrote, "There were hearts full of unbelief, who did not drink in of the Spirit, but who had bitterness in their souls." It's too bad when this happens.



I can see how mine could be wrong, but I don't see how theirs could be totally wrong. How could they bring "the message of God" "showers from heaven of the latter rain" if their perspective of things was "totally wrong"? That makes no sense to me.



To make a statement like this, I can only think you're not very familiar with her endorsements of their message (which reminds me of your claim to agree with Prescott's sermon. Perhaps you make statements that are too strong in regards to subjects you don't know very well? I remember you're disagreeing with me regarding probability, asserting that is isn't true that the probability of the occurrence of an event can be expressed as a fraction or a decimal from 0 to 1.) Her endorsements of their work was specific and far-reaching. I hope we don't fall in the same path as those who opposed them previously:

The same individual who wrote this:

“As we have already seen, the great light of 1888 was that Christ was our Substitute in holy living. But Jones and Waggoner did not clarify the Pauline and Reformation insight as to how this justifying righteousness remains outside the believer.”

Wrote this:

"We may sum up the whole period in general, and the 1888 period in particular, with the following words of Mrs. White: '... justification by faith is... the third angel's message in verity.'"

In The Shaking of Adventism Paxton was dead-on with his conclusion: Jones and Waggoner new nothing of that umbrella that covers present and future sin, much to the chagrin of some "Adventists"!


I like how Daniells, our long-time GC president, summarized it in Christ Our Righteousness (pp. 52-53):

1. The message of 1888-90 was from heaven.

2. Its rejection by some of the more experienced brethren led the younger men into uncertainty and confusion.

3. Those who rejected the message, interposed themselves between the people and the light.

4. There is no excuse; the light [of justification by faith] has been plainly revealed.

5. The reason men are slow to take hold of this precious truth is that they are bound about with their own ideas.

6. The course of some has been to turn from the message to criticize the messengers.

7. Those who refuse to walk in this advancing light, will be unable to comprehend the third angel's message.

8. Those who refuse to walk in this heavenly light, that is to lighten the earth with its glory, will call it a “false light.”

9. As a result of their unbelief, important work will be left undone.

10. Solemn entreaty to those who oppose the light to “stand out of the way” of the people.

11. Such spiritual blindness causes “sadness in heaven.”

12. The positive assurance that God “raised up messengers and endued them with His Spirit.”

13. If there had been no human voice lifted to give the message, the very stones would have cried out.

14. The call to every minister is to humble the heart before God in order that spiritual strength may come to the church.

William

Touching on one of the angles of our discussion, while the origin of Adventism can be systematically traced back to leading of the Holy Spirit, the same can't be said for Augustianism.

Scholars write that Augustine was deeply rooted in the heathen philosophies of Manichaeanism.

The Manichaeans were a "Gnostic-Christians" sect and taught, among other nonbiblical things, that all matter was inherently evil.

Interestingly, they also believed that Christ's bodily manifestations were only "apparent," and that He didn't actually come in the flesh.

In other words, they denied the real incarnation of Christ because of their view of the essentially evil nature of all matter. Scripture is clear as to the spiritual source of this belief. See John.

Augustine spent nine years immersed in these traditions, leading him, obviously, to two key conclusions: 1) to regard man's nature as essentially evil and 2) human freedom as unattainable.

Augustine also succumbed to Neo-Platoism. We could go on.

Harnack put it this way:

"We have, finally, in Augustine's doctrine of sin a strong Manichaean and Gnostic element; for Augustine never wholly surmounted Manichaeism."

Newman wrote:

"Augustine, the greatest of the Latin Fathers, was for many years connected with the Manichaeans and his modes of thought were greatly affected by this experience."

All of this to say, yes, Adventism was unequivocally influenced by contemporary ideologies, but, no, our fundamental beliefs could never remain rooted in historical paganism.

And I believe it has been the Spirit of God who has dynamically led Adventism to distinguish between the two, ever moving the denomination forward in spirit and truth, and further away from philosophical delusions.

William

There are a lot of examples of this sort of thing. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

This is a blue salmon. No postlapsarian that I know of teaches that Jesus is just like "him," or what amounts to a degenerate fiend. The issue here is flesh versus character. You seem to be expressing quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and inflamed rhetoric, young man.

The best way of biblically saying it is that Jesus came from the seed of Abraham and David—took humanity's sinful flesh. So let's be fair to the opposition, eh?

Now here is how a modern postlapsarian simplistically, beautifully stated the link between Christ's flesh and the great controversy:

"Watching Christ the Son of God come down to our level, the loyal angels became completely convinced that God is love. They were persuaded that so kind and self-sacrificing a God would not even think of imposing rules and regulations that would mar anyone's happiness. They concluded His laws are for our good and most certainly should be obeyed. They also say that God's laws can be obeyed, even by members of a race weakened through thousands of years of sin." CM Maxwell (author's emphasis).

William

I forgot about CM Maxwell. I knew his son a bit (we had a class together). I met CM and had a couple of conversations with him, but no classes. A very nice man. One of the few professors at the seminary, unfortunately, who took Ellen White seriously.

Glad to have triggered some memories, mate. One last thought from Maxwell (Adventists Affirm, Vol. 12, No. 2),

"Jesus came to prove to us that Satan was wrong. He was subjected to "the fiercest temptations that human nature can know, yet He sinned not" (ST 01-16-96). By His perfect obedience Jesus "proved that humanity and divinity combined can obey every one of God's precepts" (COL 314). The Desire of Ages, p. 123, presents this striking observation: "Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So it may be with us" (emphasis supplied)."

I can hear my Evangelical friends crying out, "Legalism!"

Not so fast. Wrote Daniells in COR (p. 50),

Lest we miss the force of these heart-searching messages [of Righteousness By Faith], let us recount the salient points:

1. God raised up men to meet the necessity of the time.

2. Some sought to turn aside the message, and to prevent an awakening among the people.

3. Such persons were ensnared by the enemy, and gave the trumpet an uncertain sound.

4. These men declared that the law should be preached—not the righteousness of Christ.

5. The exhortation is to preach Christ in the law.

6. Some were fearful of a departure from the former manner of preaching the good old doctrines.

7. God raised up men to herald the message of Righteousness By Faith.

8. The challenge: “Will you dare to turn from, or make light of, the warnings?”

9. The Twofold result of rejecting the message.
a. Deadening of spirituality.
b. Influx of mechanical, formal profession of faith.

10. The climatic question: “Is this mournful condition of things to continue?”

End quote.

Who were the true legalists at Minneapolis? Who are they now? What, then, according to this historical record, did the messages of Jones and Waggoner actually try to counteract? . . . A Christ-less cross.

See what I mean.

William

Green, after reading some of your posts, I'm no longer sure I know what you mean by this question. I thought I knew, but am no longer positive. Maybe Priebe can sort it out for you:

"At the 1901 General Conference, Dr. Waggoner said, "Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary?" George Knight says, "Christ's nature created no controversy in the Adventism of the 1890's. It was a generally accepted theological nonissue.". . . Why did it in the 1950's? We sought the fame of not being called a 'sect' at the expense of compromising the truth."

If not, I'll be happy to help.

William