A: Is this sin developed by personal choice or inherent at birth?

W: Choice.

Wrote one of your favorite postlapsarians (who was also quoted in Zurcher's dissertation):


So Waggoner was a closet prelapsarian, huh? Ha, where's Rosa's brave confirmation when you need it?

BTW, you know you've got to pick up the slack in her absence, don't you? Good to see you re-energized, mate.

Willy

Perhaps a helpful linguistic lesson and disambiguating discourse is in order.

Comparing two expressions by EGW at two different stages is your preferred postlapsarian, since I assume you're happily paying tithe toward his scholarly papers, sermon ink and salary (LOL):

"'Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he was a son of Adam like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin; but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing his will' (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 60).

"While Adam was created sinless, in the likeness of God, Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 80).

Mrs. White’s, 1870s “Born in sin” becomes her 1890s, “inherited the fallen nature.” But even the 1870 expression is not unclear. She says Seth was “like sinful Cain,” and “inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain.” Most notably, in spite of the nature he was born with, “he honored God in doing His will.” In 1890 she repeats the “no more natural goodness” line but moves from the vaguer “in sin” to the more precise “fallen nature.”

Before 1888 and the stronger emphasis on the nature of Christ, it was sufficient to use the phrase “in sin.” But with the increasing emphasis heaven placed upon this topic as the 19th century wore onward, it became important that the concept be expressed in more precise language. A clearer understanding of God’s will opens new duties to His people. As the light from Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary shines yet more brightly upon us, the language we use to express truth will inevitably be refined. The Church is to come out from past darkness, not sink back into it.

The inspired testimony about overcoming in fallen human nature is clear.

"One honored of all heaven came to this world to stand in human nature at the head of humanity, testifying to the fallen angels and to the inhabitants of the unfallen worlds that through the divine help which has been provided, every one may walk in the path of obedience to God’s commands" (God’s Amazing Grace, p. 103).

"Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression" (Maranatha, p. 224).

These statements decidedly debunk the selective use of Ellen G. White statements to teach original sin or its equivalent. Those who presented the texts already discussed as evidence for teaching that man is guilty by nature followed the texts with a Bible quote which they chose to give but not to explain: Ecclesiastes 7:20:

"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

By not explaining such a text, they leave the clear impression that they do not truly think victory is possible. They might say they do. But then why present such a text, saying nothing about how it relates to victory, and giving it in the midst of a discussion promoting the idea that “we all sin because we are sinners”?

The New Theology makes only a selective use of the Spirit of Prophecy writings because that is the only way to teach its doctrine. Because this view misrepresents the truth about human freewill and the power available to transform fallen man through the gospel, it is antagonistic to the very core of the Seventh-day Adventist message. Watch for this. Check the product before you buy. Kick the tires; sometimes they fall off!

End Quote

You don't happen to have the mailing address for Mentone's treasurer do you? (Kidding, Elle!)

Willy

No. But only because Adam possessed a sinless nature. We don't. Alongside Mrs. White's above comment (M224), instructive as it is, the Bible also inherently presupposes we can reach the sinlessness of Christ after He took man's sinful flesh.

For me, it's "odious to think" we still aren't living like the perfect Jesus, "by faith obey[ing] God’s commandments."

Willy

I agree that willfully disobeying the laws of health is a moral sin. The same thing is true of any law (moral or mosaic) that is willfully transgressed. However, do you think sinning ignorantly is a moral sin? How can it involve morals if people have no idea that what they're doing is against the law? This applies to anything and everything, including multiple spouses.

The question is - What falls under the heading of "sins of ignorance"? What can normal people think, feel, say, or do that they have no idea is against the law? I'm not talking about people who have hardened their hearts and no longer believe certain things are against the law. Instead, I have in mind people who have normal intelligence and sensibilities.

Do any of the following sins fall under the heading of "sins of ignorance"? If not, what does and why?

Romans
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Yes, sinning is what makes sinless people sinners. In the same way partaking of the divine nature does not make sinners divine, so too, partaking of fallen human nature did not make Jesus a sinner. This fundamentally the same principle. The only thing makes anyone a "sinner" is sinning. We are sinners because we have sinned - not because we inherited Adam's fallen nature. We are not guilty of sinning simply because we have a fallen nature. Guilt is incurred when we sin. For these reasons, Jesus was able to take upon Himself the same fallen nature we have without incurring guilt or requiring a savior.

Do you agree?

Willy, I don't think we have ever spoken to each other on this forum. That is, I've never responded to one of your posts and you haven't responded to one of my posts. At least, I don't recall. At any rate, I appreciate your sweet and gentle disposition. Thank you.

What you said and posted above made me wonder - Is there ever a time when people are not guilty of sinning, a instant of time when they have not yet sinned? Or, does "all have sinned" include everyone, including infants? Have you ever explored this question?

Ellen White observed, “It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ’s nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression.” (UL 18) This insight seems to suggest whatever disadvantage we inherited from Adam is more than offset by partaking of the divine nature. IOW, the fact Adam possessed a sinless nature does not seem to mean he was able to attain unto heights of sinlessness not available to us in Christ. Am I hearing her right?

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll respond in pieces, as I have opportunity.



I mean just what the "old guys" said. The two main sticking points it seems to me between prelaps and postlaps has to do with Christ's being tempted from within and with His having hereditary tendencies to sin. Prelaps say these don't apply to Christ whereas the "old guys" did.



The entire church believed Christ could be temped from within, and that He had hereditary tendencies to sin.



What you're saying here seems pretty vague to me. I think the main issues are whether Christ had hereditary tendencies to sin, and whether He could be tempted from within.



Can you quote some postlapsarian who says this was true for Jesus? I'd like to see some evidence that what you're alleging is true before commenting further.



There seems to be disagreement on the two points I mentioned.

You're misconstruing what she said. Christ had not evil propensities because He didn't sin, not because He took a different human nature than we have. She was consistent in this position.



This is ambiguous. If one says that Christ had tendencies to sin, this could be misconstrued as Christ having sinned. So she, quite rightly, did not say that. However, she did say that Christ took the same nature we have, and we know that nature has tendencies to sin. This is what the "old guys" believed.



Of course we have tendencies to sin. She speaks of cultivated and inherited tendencies to sin, of which we have both.



In this context, she wrote about how the exact moment of when divinity combined with humanity we don't know. She wasn't saying that Christ didn't take a human nature like ours. She was bringing out that Christ never sinned, and that Christ was divine.

Is it your thought that Ellen White was correcting Baker on the same position that she was endorsing Prescott regarding? That wouldn't make sense, would it?

Also, I hasten to add that I think your methodology here is terrible. You should be looking at "The Desire of Ages" to understand her Christology, not an unpublished private letter to someone whose teachings are unknown.



I agree that she did not say that Christ was "altogether like us" to anybody else. She always maintained His sinlessness and divinity.

Pleasure, MM. I've indirectly studied this subject to some extent, naturally, but I haven't honestly delved into it the way I would like, or the way you obviously have.

Not that the topic is that complex, mind you, but it's simply that there is such a wide variety of opinion, here and everywhere, that perhaps at the moment splitting these theological hairs is better suited for those whose IQ (M-A-T) is at least through intuition and perception nearing the fortunate 500. (Your welcome.)

As you've likely noticed, I lean more toward the panoramic view and historical perspective. . . that propagated 'big pictures for little minds' conceptual metaphor, so popular in today's media. Sorry, mum. Though, again, pleasure "posting" you.

Willy, er, William