Rosangela, she said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric. The Christology was key point, as Haskell makes clear. Why do you think Waggoner, Jones, Prescott and Haskell all argued so strongly against this? It was during this time that Jones wrote the articles in the Review and Herald that would later form a prominent part in his book "The Consecrated Way to Perfection."

Also during this time Ellen White penned her strongest statements in regards to Christ's taking our fallen nature. For example, Christ took "our sinful nature." Christ took our nature, "defiled and degraded by sin." "The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man." Do you think this is just coincidence?



I see that God worked through them, as well as through others. You appear to have the idea that God only worked through Ellen White, that only she (and you ) are right, and everyone else is wrong.

I don't believe this. Ellen White said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. If I believe she was telling the truth, I should believe that, shouldn't I?



You're not paying attention to what Donnell actually said. For your convenience, here it is:



This was the linchpin of the argument, which is what was most addressed. Haskell's commented:



If you look at what we (i.e. SDA's) most spent time in with regards to the Holy Flesh teachings, it was Christology. This cannot be denied. Many articles were written on this theme, and even in Ellen White's writings Christology during this time is pronounced.



You've got to be kidding!! The title of the sermon was "The Word Made Flesh." The speaker pointed out that Christ took sinful flesh something like three dozen times!!!

How you can miss what the point of the sermon is is beyond belief.



If you mean "except Christ didn't sin," you are correct. If you mean something else, then you are totally missing Prescott's point. I'd suggest re-reading his sermon more carefully, and also take a look at what Prescott said during the 1895 GCB (during which time Ellen White was also strongly endorsing his work). It appears you're quite confused as to what Prescott was saying. This is easily remedied by setting aside your own ideas, and considering what he actually said.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Prescott was strongly influenced by Jones (at first Prescott was against Jones and Waggoner's ideas, but he was open to the leading of the Spirit of God.) His teaching on Christology was no different than Jones'.



The logic of postlapsarian theology is that Christ took our sinful flesh and was obedient in that flesh, thus preparing the way for us. This is exactly what Prescott argued, as did Waggoner and Jones. When Ellen White said that Prescott showed in his sermon that we can keep the law, this is what she meant. This is obvious by reading Prescott's sermon. Prescott said nothing specifically about Christ's showing that we can keep the law! Not a word! Yet Ellen White inferred this truth from what Prescott said, which is that Christ came in our sinful flesh and kept the law perfect, thus preparing the way for humanity.

Prescott demonstrated that we can keep the law by explaining how Christ came in flesh just like ours. Prescott did not say that Christ's sinful flesh was like ours except different in some way. He said the following:



This is what Prescott's theology was: Christ has "exactly the same flesh that we bear." This could not be clearer! It's exactly the same! The only difference is that Christ did not sin in our flesh, but we do.

It's very clear that this is what Prescott meant. You see this, don't you?



As Prescott stated, Christ's "has exactly the same flesh we bear." All Ellen White stated, Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity in order to share in our sorrows and temptations.



She didn't say this. An angel said it to her. She recorded what the angel said. I guess you could say that the angel agreed with Wesley's definition of sin.

It doesn't seem like you're addressing the point. The angels said that when light is rejected, then comes the "frown of God." The "frown of God" signifies the condemnation of God. No light rejected = no frown of God (else "then comes the frown of God" is meaningless.) This is the context of the statement "there is no sin."

So how does a baby's actions (or a fetus' actions after 20 weeks) bring the frown of God?

Before I comment on that, what covenant do you think Christ obtained our salvation under, and where did it come from?

Works...no merit: are you looking at Christ's obedience, or ours, or both?

Maybe there are considerations other than one's actions and the frown of God. Consider a person who was born into a situation where he never learned anything about God, but was taught evil instead (e.g. slavery). Will God frown at him? Will God grant him eternal life?

Why would God frown on him? Did he reject light?

Regarding eternal life, what I believe is that God will take anyone to heaven that would be happy there. If the person wouldn't be happy in heaven, he won't be resurrected. We know there are a certain group of people that won't be resurrected at all (such as certain slaves, e.g.)

Haskell addresses this point once or twice, but Ellen White doesn’t, either in what she wrote or in what she spoke about the subject.


The sinful tendencies of Christ’s humanity were a prominent aspect of their theology at all times, Tom, not just at this time. So this could hardly be considered an evidence that the holy flesh controversy revolved around this subject. In fact, Christ’s humanity was occasionally mentioned at this time in the Review as part of the theme which was receiving prominence – perfection – which, coincidently, was also the main theme of the holy flesh people.


There was no especial change in this period. Ellen White had been using such expressions long before the holy flesh controversy. For instance, in 1896 she said that Christ “took upon Him our sinful nature”, and in 1898 she said that Christ united “the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature”. On the other hand, during this period she also said, for instance, that Christ “vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory”, and that "He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man".
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wwhc/hoc-ab.htm


My position in relation to the EGW writings is the same as in relation to the Bible – that there are no doctrinal errors in inspired writings, and that uninspired writings must be judged by them – and not the other way around.


No, the main focus of the fanaticism in the United States was the last generation perfection/holiness. You can verify this by reading Haloviak, “From Righteousness to Holy Flesh,” p. 18-25, about what Haskell and others wrote to Ellen White, and what Ellen White wrote in return. Christ’s nature was a mere detail in all that.


I didn’t miss it. I said what he presented there was correct, but that Ellen White didn’t refer to that.


I’m not missing Ellen White’s point. She wrote that Christ “had not taken on Him the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. ... His finite nature was pure and spotless. ... We must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and [that] He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. ... Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted” (Ms 57, 1890).


This is the correct part. The wrong part is believing that sinful tendencies are in the flesh, and not in the mind/heart.


The law of heredity transmits to us a carnal mind. This is a fact.


No. The “frown of God” signifies the wrath of God.

1.Here's what Haskell wrote to Ellen White:



One week later he wrote the following editorial in the Review and Herald entitled "Christ in Holy Flesh, or A Holy Christ in Sinful Flesh." In this article, Haskell quoted Ellen White's statement in the Desire of Ages



and commented, "This is fallen humanity, with its hereditary tendencies."

Two months later Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review entitled "The Faith of Jesus." These articles would form part of his book "The Consecrated Way to Perfection."

Donnell countered what Jones was writing by writing articles of his own. In these articles Donnell asserted:



and



and



He stated a bit later:



Here is the Q and A of another HF proponent:



At the 1901 GC session, dealing with the HF movement was the primary concern. Waggoner preached at that session, saying:



What conclusions can we draw from this?

a)Clearly Christology was the driving factor in the false theology. This is where most of the attention was directed.

b)This opposition started immediately, upon confronting the HF error, and continued in the HF teachings were defeated.

c)Ellen White stated there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric. Therefore the Christology was false, as this was the basis of the "whole fabric."

d)You are on the HF side of this controversy (the Christological part).

e)That Ellen White was on the HF side of the controversy (regarding the Christology) is impossible:

i)It would require that she be rather a dolt, not understanding that their argument demanded the Christology upon which it was built.

ii)Or, assuming she was not a dolt, it would require her to be, at a minimum, misspeaking when she said there was not a thread of truth to the whole fabric.

iii)It's not credible to suppose that while there was all this activity going on fighting the HF Christology that Ellen White would not have spoken to Waggoner, Jones, or Haskll about it. "Way a moment, guys. They are right about the Christology. Don't fight them on this point. Discuss the following errors." She would have given counsel along these lines. She would not have spurned her own advice that we might opponents with arguments that are wholly sound.

2.During this time period, Ellen White wrote the following:





That she would write these while secretly agreeing with Donnell is rather far-fetched.

Regarding the statement you cited, clearly she is saying "in human nature" regarding defeating Christ in the same nature that Adam was defeated in. She wasn't saying that Christ defeated in Satan in the nature of Adam the unfallen, or else she'd be contradicting herself, as she writes that the nature of Adam "the transgressor" united with the nature of God. I have no idea why you mentioned this quote.

2.The position you hold regarding Ellen White seems strange to me. First of all, didn't she teach that we should judge doctrines on the basis of Scripture? She never said we should judge doctrines on the basis of her writings instead, or in addition to, Scripture. I don't understand why you have this idea.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit worked with the church as a whole. He didn't just use Ellen White and ignore everyone else. Indeed, Ellen White was emphatic that the Holy Spirit worked in a wonderful way through Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott. I don't understand at all the drastic separation you make between Ellen White and the others. She had a gift, and the others had gifts. She didn't make the distinction you are making.

For example, a delegate of the 1888 conference went to Ellen White to discuss Jones and Waggoner, and she told the delegate that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. The delegate was surprised, and said, "What, with all your experience, and being a prophet, he can teach righteousness by faith better than you?" She responded that yes, he could, that God gave him a gift that He didn't give to her.

Now I believe her. Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. Given she is correct about this, I don't understand your idea of judging his writings by hers. Why would you "correct" someone by someone else who doesn't understand the subject as the person being "corrected?" She certainly didn't advocate this.

My thinking on this issue is to simply read what people wrote, and see if it makes sense, and use the Scriptures in case any questions come up as a way of judging doctrinal questions. John tells us we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. The SOP tells us the Holy Spirit used Jones and Waggoner to send us a message, a message that could be taught by them better than she. Your whole outlook on how you approach their writings looks to me to be totally foreign to what she actually said.

3.Regarding Prescott's sermon, you claimed, "The sermon was about righteousness by faith, not about Christ’s nature." What I found beyond belief is that you could somehow not grasp that the sermon *was* about Christ's nature. I still find that hard to believe.

Regarding this comment:



I think there may be some confusion in regards to the phrase "sinful tendencies." I think it would be clearer to stick to the phrases used by the authors, and quote them. This can help avoid the "switcheroos" that Arnold mentioned earlier.

Prescott's theology was straightforward postlapsarian theology. He asserted that Christ assumed flesh which is exactly like ours, but that Christ did not sin in that flesh. "Sinful flesh" and "sinful nature" were used synonymously by the "old guys." You can look at Jones or Waggoner's writings and see precisely the same point made by them as Prescott made in his sermon, which isn't surprising since Prescott got his ideas from Jones.

I don't understand how you can read Prescott's sermon, and Ellen White's endorsement of it, and not grasp that she is endorsing postlapsarian theology. You'd have to either think that Prescott was not teaching postlapsarian theology, or that Ellen White somehow didn't grasp that.

4.There's a difference between a carnal mind and sinful nature (or sinful flesh). You seem to equate these, which I think also leads to confusion. Certainly if you equate them, we could not assert that Christ took "our sinful nature," (as Ellen White did) since Christ did not have a carnal mind.

The reason the law of heredity transmits to us a carnal mind is because we've all sinned. If we didn't sin, we wouldn't have a carnal mind, even having a sinful nature. It's possible to have sinful flesh (or "sinful nature") and not have a carnal mind. Christ demonstrated this, and the 144,000 will demonstrate this as well.

5.Regarding your statement that "no frown of God" signifies "no wrath of God," these are orthogonal concepts. The wrath of God has to do with His turning over those who have sinned to the consequences of their actions. For example:



Similarly in Romans 1:



One more example:



Christ suffered the wrath of God by being "delivered" for our offences. (see Acts 2:22,23)

Here's what the angel said:



From this we see that "frown of God" is talking about "condemnation." (see the underlined phrases). We see the reason that this "frown of God" or "condemnation" comes; the rejection of light. Since newborns (and 20+ week old fetuses) do not reject light, they do not experience the condemnation or frown of God spoken of here. As the angel puts is, "there is no sin."

Again, I don't understand why you think this has something to do with Christ's taking our sinful nature.

No coincidence about it! Last generation perfection of the saints was church teaching in Adventism, until perhaps 1950-80: not sure when it was officially dropped. Their method of achieving it was an instant change of nature rather than a slow, steady change of character with a sinful nature. This method is wholly wrong, but it's based on a teaching of Christ himself having taken sinless, morally pure humanity, totally different to the church's position, not so, Rosangela?



I've got that book, and he does a bad job of it. The 2nd group of statements cannot contradict the first, as he makes out it does, and you quote them as contrary - difficult to resolve. She wrote that theme her entire life, not just in her last 20 years. "Offensive nature", and "but not the sinfulness" appear polar opposites! Your other quotes, trying to back up the sinlessness


actually points out the real difference: "Offensive nature" fits with this quote since "taint" refers to character, not the flesh itself, it having to be "offensive". Taint is like something added to the original, thus eg. guilt and sin on the life, not the nature; the original nature he took was sinfully offensive. Also,

is unambiguous! infected nature but pure character. EGW couldn't have been clearer: that was church teaching, after all; different, now.



But of course, Rosangela! But, we are born sinfully minded, not carnally mind, agreed? Carnality results from sinful mind agreeing with sinful flesh.

The old and new covenant options for us are using the carnal mind or the Spirit-filled mind to relate to Christ and his righteousness. Jesus, having taken our offensive nature, never wavered from the Spirit-filled mind he was conceived & born with, rejecting while being burdened, all the way to his righteous death, with the sinful mind natural to us all. Don't know whether you agree with the previous sentence, though!

That fulness of man Jesus was is why Ellen White said he had to do that to be a fitting Example to us.

Good points. Their methodology was wrong because it was based on a false premise. Given this to be the case, it makes perfect sense that the church focused its attention on that false premise.



I agree. Prescott said that Christ had sinful flesh, exactly like that which we bear, but Christ never sinned in the flesh of sin, whereas we all have. That sets out the difference clearly as well. The equipment was the same, but the performance was different.



This is an interesting way of putting it. I take it by "sinfully minded" you mean "with a nature predisposed to sin." Personally I'd stay away from "sinfully minded" as that seems too liable to being misunderstood. You wouldn't say Christ was "sinfully minded," would you? But we could say that Christ took a nature which was predisposed to sin, and which would have resulted in sin, had Christ not relied upon divine power to overcome those predispositions.

I disagree completely. The opposite is true – they started with the theology of victory over sin and from there they went to Christology.

This is what Ida V. Hadley wrote to Ellen White (June 1, 1900):

"My husband and I stand alone openly, as far as the ministry of the word is concerned, an to this so called 'New Light,' which is sprung up, and preparations being made to thoroughly present to the whole state [of Indiana].”

She sent the following questions to Ellen White. They all were apparently related to teachings in Indiana;

1. Was Mary's body made holy, sinless, in her flesh, before conception, so that Christ was born from sinless flesh, and His own body sinless flesh of itself? Heb. 10:5.
2. Will any one give the Loud Cry [Rev. 18] only those who will compose the 144,000? [sic]
3. Does John 14:12 [doing greater works than Christ] refer only to the 144,000?
4. Does 1 John 3:2 [shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is] refer to the time of conversion or to Christ’s second coming?
5. In 'Healthful Living,' 3d ed., p 17, sec. 35 [‘God’s law is written by his own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every faculty which has been entrusted to man’], these brethren say means that the flesh, by the law, is made holy, sinless from top to toe.' Is it?
6. Is it Bible doctrine that men need never have died, but all been translated, if they only had grasped the ‘translation faith.' That that was why Enoch and Elijah was translated because they grasped this act, rather than others? John 11:26 [Whoever lives and believes in Me, shall never die]?
7. Is conversion a change of flesh, from sinful to sinless?
8. In Matt. 9:17 [new wine in new bottles and both are preserved] , does the word ‘bottles’ represent the hearts, or the literal flesh – the whole body?
9. Has the word ‘belief’ a deeper significance than the word ‘faith’?
10. Are we to get the idea from the [Ellen White] statement in the ‘Review.’ February 27 that ‘God would have his people converted in 1900’ that probation ends this year with His people who give the message? [R S Donnell frequently quoted this Ellen White statement from the February 27, 1900, RH: ‘The Lord calls upon his people in 1900 to be converted. The Lord can not purify the soul until the entire being is surrendered to the working of the Holy Spirit.’]
1.. Could the kingdom of heaven have been set up when Jesus was here if the people of God – the Jews – had been ready, had accepted the message of John the Baptist?
12. If John the Baptist had been permitted to live and go on with his work, would there have been then 144,000 purified pieces of humanity, ready for translation, and the work finished 1900 yrs. ago?
13. Is it possible for us to arrive at that place in our experience where we do not always have to be overcomers?
14. Is it a fact that we have no place to call people to until we have received the Laodicean Message, and it cleansed us, it being the Loud Cry of the Third Angel? Rev. 18:4
15. Is it possible to get where we will not be tempted from within, before Christ comes?
16. Do the scriptures teach that there is a difference between born sons and adopted sons; that adopted sons go to dust, and born sons are translated?
17. Does not Jer. 15:19 [take forth the precious from the vile] with other scriptures, teach us that there should be caution used in mingling with the churches that God calls Babylon?
18. Does 1 Cor. 6:19 [body as temple of the Holy Ghost] have bearing on the thought of sinless flesh?

As Haloviak says, “It seems apparent from the thrust of these questions that the core of the Indiana apostasy dealt with last generation presuppositions and focused internally rather than upon Christ or His nature. Questions 2 to 8 all focus upon believers, not upon Christ. Question 1 becomes relevant only in its presupposition about what the believer who would be translated must become.” (From Righteousness to Holy Flesh, p. 31, 32).

It’s clear that Donnell first created his theory about what the 144,000 must become, and then applied this to Christ. And I believe Jones and Waggoner did the same. People first became concerned with victory over sin, then they devised a method of achieving it and, on the basis of this method, attributed a nature to Christ.


I don’t think there was complete opposition. They had similar emphases in “translation faith,” and in the fact that "perfect holiness embraces the flesh as well as the spirit; it includes the body as well as the soul" (Jones); and both had “overstrained ideas of sanctification.”


Well, your contention was that Ellen White disagreed with her friend Haskell who, in writing to her, described the holy flesh movement as “a mixture of truth and error” (Haskell to Ellen White, September 25, 1900). As I said previously, even Satan mixes truth and error, but if you think you must take Ellen White’s words literally, what can I do?


Could you please explain how I can be “in the HF side of this controversy (the Christological part)” if I don’t believe Christ had holy flesh? It’s like saying that I am on the post-lapsarian side of this controversy (the Christological part) because I believe that Christ had fallen flesh. To me neither party is completely wrong, and neither party is completely right.


I agree, since she didn’t believe Christ had holy flesh.


To demonstrate that, contrarily to what you say, Ellen White saw no significant differences between a nature with tendencies to sin and a nature without tendencies to sin in what respects Satan’s temptations.


So your contention is that there is no difference between Ellen White’s writings and Jones and Waggoner’s writings. Is this your position?


??? Don’t you think there is a contradiction here? Does the law of heredity, then, in your view, transmit to us a sinful mind, a carnal mind, a neutral mind, or what? We are born with a mind. What kind of mind is it?


??? The wrath of God is the manifestation of His hatred against sin.
Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men


No, the angel is talking about both the condemnation of sin and the frown of God – two different things, IMO. By the way, what, to you, is a sin of ignorance?

Hi, Colin! I'll reply to your posts tomorrow.