So you believe that means Jesus died to provide us bread, etc.? Don't you also believe that Jesus DID NOT have to die to forgive and restore Satan, the originator of sin? Yet, He has to die in order to restore the ozone layer?

It makes a mockery of what it is that crucified Jesus, and crucifies Him afresh today. It's not lack of bread, or a messed up atmosphere, or male pattern baldness, or thorny vegetation, or half-cooked french fries. Christ died for OUR SINS.

I've only heard that argument from those who believe that babies are sinless, but have to find some reason for why Jesus has to die for babies. In the process, they end up teaching that Jesus has to die for dogs, too, and plants, and rocks, and air, etc.

We can just do away with all that and accept the fact that Adam's sin made us all sinners, and Jesus has to die for every sinner that wants to avoid the death sentence. Then we can rejoice that Jesus did die for all sinners. All that's needed now is for the sinner to accept His death and His life.

Actually, it's starting to look like a serious problem. You can't seem to get yourself to agree with certain people, for whatever reason.

Donnell believed that Jesus was righteous and holy. I agree. Did the "old guys" agree? Do you agree? Yes or no?

(I'll check if I have the gift of prophecy and guess that your answer will be something along the lines of "Why do you ask that?" or "That's not what we're talking." I hope you prove me wrong.)

Let's look at what Donnell said:



Please note that part of his theology is that Christ "did not possess the tendency to sin." Now Donnell could have said this more accurately, as your previous comment brought out. What Donnell was really getting at was that Christ did not have hereditary tendencies to sin.

Here's what Haskell said:



The first paragraph, in quotes, is from "The Desire of Ages." The second is what Haskell said about it. Notice the underlined sentence. This is the point of disagreement between Haskell (and the other SDA's who fought against the Holy Flesh ideas) and Donnell (and the other Holy Flesh people, and you and Rosangela).

Here's something else Haskell said:



Their theology was that
1.Christ did not possess sinful flesh.
2.Therefore He did not have tendencies to sin.
3.We, in order to be holy like Christ, also cannot have tendencies to sin.
4.Therefore we need to have holy flesh, like Christ had.

This is pretty much the same argument Rosangela has laid out, the only difference being that item #4 is interpreted differently by her than by Donnell.

In order to meet this argument, Haskell, and the other SDA's who fought against it, meeting it as its source, which are the assumptions regarding Christ's humanity. Had they believed in Original Sin, they would have agreed with the first parts of the argument and only argued against the ending parts of it. Ellen White condemned the entire argument as not having a thread of truth in the whole fabric. She could not have done so if she actually agreed with Donnell on the foundational points rather than Haskell. She would not have said that the whole fabric had not a thread of truth in it, but that parts of the argument were right and parts of it were wrong.

Now of course there were certain things which Donnell believed which were true, such as that God exists, that we should keep the Sabbath, that Christ was holy and righteous, that our souls are not immortal, etc. (which we, as SDA's, believe), but these have not to do with the issue at hand. As I've pointed out, I see two differences between the prelapsarians and postlapsarians in regards to Christ's humanity.

1.Christ did/did not have the hereditary inclinations of which Haskell speaks.
2.Christ was/was not tempted from within (meaning He had temptations to face which were not brought to Him by some other being, such as Satan or an agent of his).

Those who believe in Original Sin argue that if Christ had any inclinations to sin (even by way of assuming a nature which had such inclinations) He would need a Savior. This is just what Donnell argued, and the argument continues to this day. You can see above that Haskell tried to meet this argument.

Those who believe in Original Sin also argue that Christ could not have been tempted from within because to be so tempted would make Him guilty of sin. This argument is also being repeated.

These are the two points where I see there to be genuine disagreement between postlapsarians and prelapsarians. That Christ was holy and righteous is an area upon which there is no disagreement. That Christ had a holy, sinless nature (also divine) is also not an issue of disagreement, nor is the fact that Christ was morally and spiritually perfect. The disagreement has to do with the characteristics of the nature which Christ assumed. This is what we should be discussing.

Now if you think there is some other area upon which there is disagreement, please present some evidence to support your point of view, by which I mean, quote something that somebody wrote. I'm not stating absolutely that the two things I mentioned are the only areas of disagreement, but that they are the only ones I've been able to think of. If you can think of others, fine, we can discuss them, but please do as I have done, and present some evidence to support your assertions.

It seems clear to me the above is saying that we owe our physical existence to Christ's death. How else would one understand, "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life."?

You're wish has been fulfilled! See Romans 5:18.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone that I was speaking about the holy flesh controversy.


Like she said that Satan was leading Prescott and Waggoner, Tom. Everything has a context and you must examine the evidence.


So you think the idea that we are born loving ourselves supremely is absurd? And I suppose you believe we are not born selfish, but that we become selfish later in life?


Tom, as long as a fetus can survive outside the uterus (20+ weeks gestation), he/she is a baby. There will be babies in heaven, not fetuses and zygotes.


Does the law condemn selfishness? Yes or no? Is it your position that unconscious selfishness is not a sin? Unconscious transgression of the Sabbath is not a sin? Unconscious idolatry is not a sin? (Unconscious in the sense that you don’t have enough light about the subject.) Or are these sins of ignorance?
What Ellen White says is, “His [God’s] wrath is never visited upon sins of ignorance” {ST, November 1, 1899 par. 7} (“no frown of God,” of course, would refer to the same thing). Thus babies and children, mentally retarded people, the slaves described by Ellen White, won’t be in the lake of fire.
The children of Christian parents will be saved because they are covered by the faith of the parents and correctly brought up. We don’t know about the children of non-Christian parents. Perhaps those who weren’t ruined by their parents will be saved – of course, owing to Christ’s sacrifice.


I explained why I didn’t need to quote anyone on this, and you didn’t reply to my argument, by the way.

Colin,

God's pre-Fall covenant with Adam was a covenant of works, while the post-Fall covenant was a covenant of grace by faith. Do you believe that God's covenant with Christ was a covenant of grace?

Boy, you can't miss a chance to bad mouth Jones and Waggoner, can you? Please take a look at #113081, which provides the context and presents the evidence.



No, you're getting off base here. You've just clipped off a little snippet of what I said, and are running off in a different direction. If you wish to discuss this, please provide more of the context.



Leaving aside that this statement is self-contradictory, it's your contention, I take it, that at 20+ weeks a fetus is guilty of not loving God supremely, and would be judged by God as such, if it weren't for Christ's sacrifice?



In the sense of condemnation, it's not, right? How else should one understand the statements "There is no sin" and "There is no frown of God."?



I'm thinking along the same lines as Ellen White. She's pointing out that these are not condemned, and why. The why is that they did not reject light.



Covered by the faith of the parents? That makes no sense, if you mean in a vicarious sense, which sounds like what you're saying.

The correctly brought up part makes sense, because what will determine if a baby can be taken to heaven is the same thing that determines whether anyone will be taken to heaven, and that's if he or she would be happy there.



This is rather vague, especially "owing to Christ's sacrifice." What does this mean? (I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but just pointing out that you haven't been at all specific).

The children of non-Christian parents will be taken to heaven on the same basis as anyone else, which is if they would be happy there. You're on the right track in saying "who weren't ruined by their parents" -- that's the key. This applies to Christian and non-Christian parents alike.



Sorry, but I couldn't get past where you said "I don't need to quote anyone."

If God didn't say anything, and left us all completely in the dark, would we all be uncondemned, having had no light at all?

Why would God condemn us for not responding to light He didn't give us?