This isn't the doctrine of original sin. Original sin has to do with guilt, not with the fact that death came as a result of Adam's sin. Under original sin, we are guilty, even if we never sinned, because we have a sinful nature.

I like to say it this way:

1 - distrust God's goodness,
2 - disbelieve His word,
3 - disobey His command (or disregard His authority).

"By ONE man's disobedience many were made sinners." Not "each man's" disobedience.

How? That man was our representative.

On the flip side:

"By ONE Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Not "each man's" obedience.

How? That Man can be our representative, if we choose.

It is, to the best of my understanding, the why of the doctrine of original sin. The how then comes for instance in Augustines corruption of the eternal platonic image of man.

What SDAs? Ellen White says we are born in sin.

All SDAs. Ellen White didn't have a unique position on Original Sin. It's easy to see this couldn't be the case.

For example, consider the Holy Flesh controversy. They had an Original Sin position, and the SDA church battled them on that basis. If the Holy Flesh position was actually the correct one, and the SDA position was incorrect, Ellen White would have, of course, corrected them. She wouldn't allow the church to meet an incorrect teaching with unsound arguments.



Secondly she endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon, "The Word Became Flesh," which is incompatible with the Original Sin idea.

Regarding the quote you mentioned, William already discussed this.

The whole idea is Ellen White was the only SDA who believed in Original Sin (except for the Holy Flesh people) is absurd on the face of it. She wrote way to much on the subject for there to have been such a gross misunderstanding. It was known what SDA's believed, and what SDA's believed Ellen White's teachings were. For example:



The first paragraph is from "The Desire of Ages." The second is Haskell. It's clear that Haskell understood Ellen White to be teaching that Christ took our nature, with its hereditary inclinations, a position contrary to the Original Sin idea.

At this same general time, Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner were all working to refute the Holy Flesh teachings by publishing articles attacking the Original Sin idea. E. J. Waggoner discussed this at the 1901 GC session, the main issue of which was the Holy Flesh doctrines.

That Jones and Prescott and Haskell and Waggoner were wrong about all this, while Davis and Donnel were right, and Ellen White didn't utter a peep is a position difficult to take seriously.

If Original Sin meant that we all die because Adam sinned, then everyone would agree with it, as, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't any disagreement on this point. The disagreement comes over whether the guilt of Adam is passed genetically from generation to generation.

And what may the difference between the two positions be?

Are you saying that Ellen White is basically saying that every baby born was born in sin?

In practical terms, the differences are under one position Christ could not have had hereditary tendencies to sin (genetically passed) nor could He be tempted from within, because such would imply that Christ were guilty of sin (this is the Original Sin position). The other position is that these things do not cause one to incur guilt.