That's the point! Although we are not aware of some sins, there must be a covering for them - which means, sin is offensive to God, whether we are aware of it or not. When we become aware of them, we also become aware of their offensiveness before God - that's the meaning of the sacrifices for sins of ignorance.

No, what Donnell was really getting at was that 1) Christ had holy flesh, and 2) we can also have holy flesh.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, there is more to holy flesh than simply tendencies to sin; there is also natural enmity against Satan and his will and, obviously, absence from the physical effects of sin. At least that was Adam’s pre-fall nature. Ellen White says three things about Christ: 1) that Christ was not “a man with the propensities of sin,” 2) that the enmity against Satan in Christ’s humanity was supernatural (not natural), and 3) that He had the physical effects of sin in His humanity. So Christ’s flesh couldn’t be classified as holy flesh. And if not even Christ possessed holy flesh, much less can we possess it.


Tom, you said that the idea that we are not born loving God supremely is absurd. Your exact words: “In what way would an infant love God supremely? Is this something a fetus could do?”
It’s more than obvious that someone who loves himself supremely cannot love God supremely. If we are born selfish, we are born loving ourselves supremely. Do you disagree?


A 20+ weeks fetus, if born, is born selfish, isn’t it? Or do you believe that we become selfish later in life? Does the law of God condemn selfishness or not?

The law of God condemns all selfishness. {ST, March 11, 1897 par. 2}

Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God. {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}


It’s true that we aren’t condemned for sins of ignorance. But isn’t this because of Christ’s sacrifice, or is it your contention that Christ’s sacrifice does not make provision for sins of ignorance?

In his sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for wilful blindness. {RH, April 25, 1893 par. 10}


“I know that some questioned whether the little children of even believing parents should be saved, because they have had no test of character and all must be tested and their character determined by trial. The question is asked, ‘How can little children have this test and trial?’ I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children, as when God sent His judgments upon the first-born of the Egyptians. The word of God came to the Israelites in bondage to gather their children into their houses and to mark the doorposts of their houses with blood from a lamb, slain. This prefigured the slaying of the Son of God and the efficacy of His blood, which was shed for the salvation of the sinner.It was a sign that the household accepted Christ as the promised Redeemer. It was shielded from the destroyer's power. The parents evidenced their faith in implicitly obeying the directions given them, and the faith of the parents covered themselves and their children. They showed their faith in Jesus, the great Sacrifice, whose blood was prefigured in the slain lamb. The destroying angel passed over every house that had this mark upon it. This is a symbol to show that the faith of the parents extends to their children and covers them from the destroying angel. {3SM 314.1}


Oh! I thought that all those who will be in heaven will be found there because of Christ’s sacrifice (even those who have never heard of it).
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

In that case there would be grace in God's relationship with the angels, too - they also receive His love and material provisions. But grace is for sinners.

God loves the sinless angels, who do His service and are obedient to all His commands, but He does not give them grace. These heavenly beings know nought of grace; they have never needed it, for they have never sinned. {HP 34.3}

"Condemnation" can be understood differently, depending on the context. For example, a baby can get AIDS from its mother, and be condemned to die, even though it is not guilty of anything. In we're talking about condemnation in the context of the following:



which is what I've been quoting, I don't see those who have no light could be condemned.



This looks to be what the above quote is saying, isn't it? "If light comes, and that light is set aside, or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject."

Isn't that what this means? The only way I could see one could disagree would be to have a different meaning of "condemnation" in mind, like that infant in the AIDS case.

Perhaps the the morning and evening sacrifices were necessary for some other reason than because sin is offensive to God. Of course, sin is offensive to God, but that doesn't imply that this should require a sacrifice. Even with the sacrifices, sin is still just as offensive to God.

Here are some prayers which were offered along with the sacrifices:



This gives an idea as to the understand the Jews had in regards to the sacrifices.

Well, let's look at what he said:



I'm seeing what I said here, that he was saying that Christ did not have the tendency to sin, whereas Haskell said that, according to Ellen White, Christ took fallen humanity, with its tendencies to sin. So this is where Donnell's teaching was met.



This isn't what was being dealt with in the quotes of Haskell and Donnell so, so doesn't look to matter in the context of this discussion.



Of course Donnell was aware that Christ had the physical effect of sin in His humanity, so his use of "holy flesh" did not have to do with this. By "holy flesh" he meant that Christ did not have any tendencies to sin. Your defining "holy flesh" differently than he did, but in terms of what was actually being discussed, your logic is the same as his. Namely:

a)Christ did not have hereditary tendencies to sin.
b)Our hereditary tendencies to sin must be eradicated.
c)Having hereditary tendencies is sin.

You're both in agreement on these points. The SDA's fighting the Holy Flesh controversy disagreed.



I think none of this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to have an extremely limited concept of love if you think loving God supremely is something that a 20 week old fetus is capable of doing, or a newborn.



Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature. The "our sinful nature" is the same for both Christ and fallen man. Our nature, apart from divine help, leads to selfishness. However, divine help is available to all human beings, including infants.

I don't understand all this emphasis on infants.



You noticed I said,"I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but just pointing out that you haven't been at all specific."



You continue not being specific.

What I believe is that God will take to heaven anyone who would be happy there, whether child or adult, regardless of professed religion, or anything else. To me this makes perfect sense in regards to God's character, as well as specific comments from inspiration, such as the following:

Sure, but there are other, original, aspects to grace, as I've listed previously in this thread. Saving grace is an added aspect, which shall serve its time in God's good planning, so original grace will continue as before, once sin and the great controversy has been settled and removed - not forgetting eternity for the redeemed on the new earth with the Lamb, on the flip side of that! My original point on this is that grace is far more than mere saving grace, bestowing undeserved favour, as its part of who and what God is, separate to mercy, etc, etc.

Colin, perhaps "graciousness" might convey your thought in a way that may be easier for some to grasp. Your point is that God has always been gracious, that His graciousness was being manifest long before there was sin and will continue to be manifest through eternity. I agree.

Saving grace is simply one manifestation of God's graciousness.

Yup, graceousness is a word for it, that we all use a lot.

So your contention is that Ellen White, on addressing the subject, failed to comment on the most fundamental point of the whole problem. It's strange that she was “led to speak words intended to counteract ... [the] influence” of Waggoner’s view on sanctification, but wasn’t led to speak words to counteract the influence of Donnell’s view on the absence of tendencies to sin in Christ’s humanity.


Yes, and since neither made a complete analysis of the subject, neither was correct.


They may have disagreed but, again, Ellen White herself didn't say a single word about tendencies to sin.

In fact, what she said on other occasions was that Christ was not "a man with the propensities of sin" (whether hereditary or otherwise), and also that hereditary tendencies to sin must be eradicated from our nature.

"Many children have inherited selfishness from their parents, but parents should seek to uproot every fiber of this evil tendency from their natures. Christ gave many reproofs to those who were covetous and selfish. Parents should seek, on the first exhibition of selfish traits of character, whether in their presence, or when in association with other children, to restrain and uproot these traits from the character of their children." {CG 132.4}


Loving God supremely is just loving what He loves and hating what He hates – nothing more, nothing less. We are born in the opposite way - loving what He hates and hating what He loves.

“The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked.” {TDG 34.3}


??? Divine help is for those who seek it, and babies obviously are completely unaware of it. Besides, selfishness is sin, whether one is conscious of it or not – selfishness is the opposite of love and, thus, the opposite of the law and the opposite of God.


Independently of Christ’s sacrifice, I suppose.