If you're dead, there's not much you can do spiritually or morally. The idea I'm bringing up is a common one, brought up by Paul, and by the 1888 messengers, and by Prescott, as well as Ellen White.



No. FW 21 explains the concept (I'll quote it later).



No, this isn't her idea.





First of all, what you asked was, "If someone needs a Savior, doesn't that mean that he needs to be saved?" This is clearly false, as explained. We may be saved, but we still need a Savior.

Regarding this question, Romans 5:18 deals with this, as well as the DA 660 quote and the FW 21 quote. Here's another one that deals with it:



From Romans 5:18



In Adam, the human race was lost. In Christ, it was saved.

Did Waggoner say that a baby needs salvation because of its sinful nature? If he said that, then he agrees with what you call original sin, and I agree with him.

Again, I don't understand the preoccupation with babies. To know what Waggoner said, read what he wrote! We certainly have enough encouragement to do so!

Waggoner is simply contradictory, for if we need salvation because of our sinful nature (propensities to sin), the same is true about the Christ who he said was born with a human nature which had these propensities.

You think Waggoner is contradictory and Jones doesn't make sense. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't think your opinion agrees with Ellen White's, in addition to your ideas not agreeing with theirs.

The argument you are making here, is the same that that Holy Flesh people made. Haskell brought this out in his letter to Ellen White. It's predicated on Original Sin. If Original Sin were true, the argument would be OK. That Ellen White would affirm that Christ took "our sinful nature," as well as endorsing Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" should make clear her view of it.

Yes, that second sentence is all wrong, as the lesson isn't so good at explaining. One is almost mislead to thinking the lesson agrees with those lines, though!

Sorry for the length, below, of this post: correcting "original sin" takes some precision. I don't like leaving pertinent bits out, if I can help it.

Two words need changing, in that second sentence - first sentence indeed is fine:

This now fits the memory verse itself - by one man condemnation has come on all. Our sinful nature condemns us since it itself must be eradicated by hell fire, and Christ tasted that for us, having taken our condemned nature as his own and put it through eternal death by bearing all our guilt and suffering death resulting from God's wrath against sin for us; otherwise called the broken heart, which agape was willing to suffer.

Thus Rom 7 starts with the news of our release from the condemnation of the law by the body of Christ, who put our sinful, condemned nature through the death it must undergo, thus freeing us from that wretched life & eternal end, and releasing us with his resurrection, etc., redeemed from the curse we're under.

Also, contrary to what anyone, anywhere, anytime, wrote, Christ did not atone for our sin by dying for our sin: Christ doesn't reconcile our sin to himself...! Christ atoned for us: that's what the Bible says.

Back to the main issue here, Augustine was right on three out of four of his elements making up original sin: sinful humanity is inclined to sinning, morally weak or degenerate against that inclination, and thus captive and condemned by that inclination. The notion of receiving guilt by inheritance is all that's wrong with original sin. Human nature itself is thus irredeemable, but humans are redeemable, hence Christ took our sinful nature to produce righteousness using our human equipment with divine power from above by his Father's Spirit, so as to offer a perfect sacrifice for sin and suffer sin's death by God's wrath, so that thence all who believe may obtain the glory of God by that gospel (2 Thes 2:14).

To reiterate, "corruption" speaks of guilt, which is not naturally received from Adam's fall, but "condemnation" is.

The second word needing change is...well, maybe the whole sentence is unhelpful!! It's typically, incorrectly: we sin because we're sinners; we're sinners because we sin. This is wrong, since it diminishes free moral choice such that it prevents us from not sinning, whether we be humanist or charitable - even God couldn't break the cycle with the supposed power over death of his love; simply no possibility not to be sinners. It should be: we sin because we're sinful; we're sinners because we sin.

Since there's a straight line of cause and effect, here, and not a circular line as in the wrong statement above, there is actually an opportunity in our human reality for perfect obedience to God, by grace through our use of the faith of Jesus. IOW, we have to choose to sin and it's not something we're naturally stuck in, in light of Biblical grace and our God and Saviour.

In trying to correct wrong theology, in the 2nd paragraph on Tuesday, the lesson gets it half wrong, but only half wrong, fortunately. By our sinful nature everyone is born condemned to destruction - an automatic, human reality: the whole truth is that by grace we have a Saviour, since he lives forever more, and thus we are not left in our state of condemnation. That he lives forever more means that his salvation is effective for everyman, whom he personally represents by having taken our sinful, condemned nature, from which we need salvation from its fate of death under God's wrath against its sin.

Thus, by grace alone, before any man comes to faith during this life - yes, while Adam and Eve were hiding from the Son of God in the Garden, salvation is effective, rooted in Jesus' own glorified person, by virtue of both his natures - each of which plays a part in our salvation - human character and divine life, by the promise and plan of God, from the foundation of the world. [As an aside, the eternal life of Jesus' glorified humanity is for himself alone - after all, he's earned it! - as it is actually finite; the eternal life of his diety is for sharing! Jn 5:26 sets the scene: as the Father gave his Son to have life in himself, so he is able to share it out with his adopted brethern/sisters; this is incidentally the very context of that rather misused sentence about his life in DA 530, which speaks merely to Christ giving us what's his and we haven't got. (Cross ref. the Signs of the Times article for the whole quote!] At first mankind anticipated and believed in the Messiah through faith; now one hears of his history and believe in him through faith. There is of course no dispensations separately of law and grace...

The latter end of Tuesday's lesson requires a separate post.

The bit in the red box at the bottom of Tuesday's section is exquisitely beautiful: someone dared to say it!!!

Oh, yes, the paragraph under the "How" bold print question is an Adventist strawman..., but this red box story is spot on!!!!!!!

The Why is easy: sanctification is the daily experience of justification! They are mutually inclusive, not exclusive, after all!

It is because we need a Saviour who gives us the experience of his justifying righteousness, by grace through faith, that perfectly reflecting his character is both "supposedly" possible, and a requirement of salvation, finally known is its fulness by those ready for translation at Jesus Return. Therefore, we indeed may hasten his coming by cooperating with him - so that he can actually finish his intercession for our sins and come and get us.

Was the Savior also born condemned to destruction?

The problem is, you didn't explain how Waggoner's arguments aren't contradictory, and why Jones' arguments are completely different from those of Ellen White.


Ellen White never wrote a single word about Christ's nature when addressing and fighting the holy flesh theory. And Prescott doesn't say a single word about Christ's human nature having sinful tendencies in his sermon. Of course Christ took our sinful nature. What you have to prove is that He took our sinful spiritual/moral nature.

You think Waggoner's contradictory. I don't. Only if you're right is there anything to explain. Similarly with Jones. You see the arguments as different, but I see Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, and Ellen White all using the same arguments, as did Prescott, Haskell, Jones and Waggoner. *They* all thought they were on the same page.



First of all, Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner were all busy doing this very thing. Ellen White didn't exist in a vacuum. Secondly, she certainly did so by implication. She said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric of what they taught, and the foundation of what they taught is the following:



Haskell, to counteract this, quoted from "The Desire of Ages" and commented, regarding Ellen White's statements "This if fallen humanity, with its hereditary tendencies." Now given the issue of tendencies is the foundation of the "whole fabric," and given Ellen White said there was not a thread of truth in the "whole fabric," it's certainly the case that her statement would be including the foundation of the "whole fabric"!

You agree with Donnell and Davis on this point, disagree with Haskell, Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner, and somehow think that Ellen White agrees with you, Donnell, and Davis on this point, while disagreeing with Haskell, Waggoner, Prescott and Jones!




I quoted a parallel sermon to make clear to you how he thought. I explained to you that you could only think you agreed with that sermon by misunderstanding what he was saying. You saw what I quoted, didn't you?

You're not agreeing with Prescott's intent, but only with words reinterpreted by you to mean what you would want them to mean. This isn't agreeing with someone else.



Of course? That's an odd way for you to put it. You've tried to argue previously that Ellen White only used this phrase once, as if she misspoke, or something like that. Now you say "of course."



Tsk, tsk, tsk! Once again, trying to define the issue into something its not! I've been quoting from Waggoner and Jones to make clear that these red herrings don't apply. You're apparently recognizing this to some extent because you say that they are agreeing with you (a funny way of putting it, since they predate you, but it least it's a step).

So what are the real issues? I see two:

a.Christ had hereditary tendencies to sin (genetically passed).
b.Christ could be tempted from within.

I've quoted from the "old guys," as Arnold put it, to establish these points. Since you disagree with these, and they actually taught these things, these are actual issues to consider.

If you're going to assert an issue to be resolved is that Christ took our moral/spiritual nature, you'll have to first establish this as a fact. Please either quote somebody who asserted this, or recognize this as a red herring and move on to something else.