Christ's sacrifice occurred precisely because sin is so offensive to God. The cross demonstrates how offensive sin is to Him.

"In beholding the cross the view is extended to God, and His hatred of sin is discerned. But while we behold in the cross God's hatred of sin, we also behold His love for sinners, which is stronger than death."{OHC 45.5}


The understanding the Jews in general had of the sacrificial system has always been wrong. Just a few among them understood their meaning.

Colin, let's try again. You had said


??? Obedience is the same as works.

God always demanded good works, the law demands it, but because man placed himself in sin where his good works were valueless, Jesus' righteousness alone can avail. {OHC 122.2}

Adam would obtain eternal life - heaven - by his good works, his obedience. We cannot do this. We obtain eternal life by God's grace, through Christ's obedience on our behalf, which won back the heaven that Adam lost.

God's covenant with the two Adams is different from God's covenant with us.

Not really if you consider all that was going on. There were already a truck load of people speaking about Donnell's being wrong in terms of his view of Christology, and she had already given her thumbs up to their work, so she concerned herself with another aspect (you really can't resist taking barbs at Jones or Waggoner, can you?; rather amusing).



Perhaps their ability to analyze these things was better than yours. Perhaps there is a flaw in your analysis. For example, I haven't seen where your analysis takes into account that Ellen White said there wasn't a thread of truth in the whole fabric. Also, I don't see how you account for her endorsement of Prescott's sermon.

At first you claimed to agree with Prescott's sermon. I quoted you a parallel passage showing what Prescott's real thoughts on the matter were, so your idea that that Ellen White was simply agreeing with the same ideas you have is disproved. She knew what Prescott's thoughts on the matter were, which thoughts were very different than yours are, a fact which you can easily prove to yourself by familiarizing yourself with what Prescott's ideas actually were.



She said their wasn't a thread of truth to the whole fabric, and the start of their argument was regarding Christ's supposedly not having the hereditary tendencies that we have, so she did cover this.



Everyone agreed on this (except Baker). The disagreement was in relation to where Donnell and Haskell disagreed. Ellen White disagreed with Donnell. Your idea that somehow Ellen White in actuality agreed with Donnell and disagreed with Haskell without telling him, is not credible, as well as having Ellen White acting out of character both by giving false impressions and by not abiding by her counsel that we should meet opposition with arguments which are not wholly sound.



Are we born this way, or conceived this way? Is it impossible for God's grace to touch a fetus or an infant? Does it make any difference if He does so?

What, oh what, does this have to do with Christ's taking "our sinful nature"?



??? Weren't you just talking about the role of the parents' faith? Aren't they seeking it on behalf of their children?



How do you understand the angel's statement that where there is no light there is no sin, and the condemnation (the frown of God) comes when light is rejected? Fetuses and newborns aren't guilty of rejecting light, are they?

Christ died to save us. Without Christ's sacrifice, we were lost and without hope. Also the cross of Christ unmasked the enemy before the onlooking universe, and made clear God's true character, thus winning the Great Controversy.



Putting things strictly in terms of God's being offended by sin would cast God in a selfish way. The sacrifice of Christ was not for self-centered reasons, but for the good of others, as all of God's actions are. It's true that the sacrifice of Christ reveals God's hatred of sin, and that this is an important thing to see in terms of understanding God's true character, which is what the Great Controversy is all about.




Perhaps this is a reason for the morning and evening sacrifices: to manifest God's love for sinners.



If your talking about in the fullest sense, this is true, but in terms of the basic meaning of the sacrifices, both the Jews and the other contemporary cultures had a much better understanding of them than we do. This was their language, their way of life. The sacrifices were full of meaning.

It would be as if God were to communicate with us today in the language of TV's and computers and the internet. These are things we all understand and take for granted.

The SOP tells us that there is much we could learn if we understood the Hebrew economy better. This is how God communicated to them. The Hebrews understood this because this was their life.

Because spiritual things are spiritually understood, there were things those who were not spiritual (unfortunately many) did not understand. But they all had the same world outlook, an outlook which we do not have. God was communicating to them in their language, a language they understood because it was their livelihood, a language they shared with their contemporaries. It was God's plan that God would take the message He gave to them and spread it to their neighbors.

Works are readily misunderstood, deemed attempted without faith. Hence the choice of "obedience" instead of works, which is unambiguously the experience of justification - for us, and the experience of righteous by faith with Christ.

Christ had to produce merits for our salvation, true, and his performance was acceptable to his Father, who effected salvation of the world, as of Christ's death and resurrection. Are we not to be judged by our salvation experience of sanctified obedience, too?

That judgement also being understood to be a fitting us for walking into heaven, qualified as we are already by the experience of justification, not so? God's covenant with us demands essentially belief on our part, and submission to his Lordship, but the conditions of that belief are obedience and the works which are their visible form. Agreed?

How did we get here..., this topic?

True justification by faith results in the believing being made obedient. So from the point one is justified (provided one remains justified) one will do good works. The good works are both a sign of having been justified as well as a part of the process of being justified.

This was one of the chief points of the 1888 message, and a point which Colin has been emphasizing.

What does, "Christ had to produce merits for our salvation" mean? Also, for what purpose was this necessary?

Ellen White’s concern was Donnell’s last-generation theology, not his Christology. This is what she mentions in her letters and diary notes about the subject, as well as in her address given at the 1891 general conference. She never mentions anything about Christ’s nature – which you say is the main point in the whole controversy.


I’m concerned about you, because you almost idolize them.


Of course the statement that there isn’t a thread of truth in the whole fabric refers to Donnell’s and Davis’ main points, that is, that Christ had holy flesh and that we can also have holy flesh; that we can achieve the point of no longer having to worry about sinning; that if we have the correct type of faith we will never die; and that those who receive the seal of God won’t have any physical defect. But obviously nothing, to be believable, can be 100% wrong – not even what Satan himself says. In every mistaken teaching, truth is always mixed with error. Recognizing this is good common sense.


Ellen White, commenting about the sermon, says that in it Christ was exalted. The sermon was about righteousness by faith, not about Christ’s nature. However, what the sermon presents about Christ’s nature is correct – Christ didn’t come in the flesh of Adam – He came in our flesh. He took our sinful, fallen nature - except for one element: sin.


It has everything to do with it! It’s part of our sinful nature loving what God hates and hating what He loves. Was Christ born with this part of our sinful nature?


Ellen White seems to agree with the Wesleyan definition of sin. “Sin,” for Wesley, was willful sin (as opposed to sins of ignorance). So, when she says, “there is no sin,” this means willful sin, but obviously in this case there is a sin of ignorance.

She says,

The least deviation from its [the law’s] requirements, by neglect or willful transgression, is sin, and every sin exposes the sinner to the wrath of God. {1SM 218.2}

While

"His [God’s] wrath is never visited upon sins of ignorance.” {ST, November 1, 1899 par. 7}

Sins of ignorance are not held against the person because Christ’s sacrifice has made provision for them.

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}

By no means! God is love, and sin is the opposite of love. The cross demonstrates that God hates sin, and the history of this planet demonstrates why He hates sin.

I'm desmonstrating that Christ could not have obtained our salvation under the covenant of grace. In the covenant of grace obedience (works) has no merit.

Of course Christ obtained our salvation under the covenant of grace. Christ was righteous by faith.