No, I disagree. However, I believe that Christ will have removed His priestly robes, so He will not be continuing the intercessory work He was doing in the MHP.



Since God's word is good, and we can trust He will do what He says, there is no meaningful difference.

I disagree. If you look at the definition I provided, it looks to me like it's referring to sins committed, and not referring to one's heredity. You'll see the definition speaks of a thing being "as if" it were hereditary. The point is not the the sin was inbred through genetic manipulation, but people have become so attached to their sins, they become such a part of them, it is as if they were. This seems to be in harmony with the context of the EGW quotes, it looks to me.

I don't understand the confusion. I explained:



I don't see how one could take this as an argument.



Thanks!



To summarize up to here:

1.Lucifer did commit sins of ignorance.
2.Lucifer also committed sins which were not of ignorance, this latter class being unatoneable.
3.The first class of sins, God would have pardoned Lucifer for, had he repented, as these were not unatoneable.



I've not heard this point of view before. However, I don't necessarily disagree with it. I'm wanting to see it fleshed out more. It's certainly an interesting concept. The concept looks to be that even though we *think* we know what we're doing, we really don't, at least, not as Lucifer/Satan did in the full light of heaven and God's knowledge. The following seems to support your idea, if not in all its particulars, at least in spirit:



I see you quoted the same passage! It looks like we may see this similarly.



I agree, which is why Lucifer needed to repent and be pardoned.



I agree with this as well.



I agree with this, for those who love God.



I agree with this as well. He tries to keep us ignorant of the truth, to hold us in bondage.

I'm saying that in our righteousness there is a taint of sin, that we fulfill the law imperfectly. Doesn't the law require perfect righteousness? Well, our righteousness is imperfect, deficient, and it can only be considered perfect in Christ, owing to His imputed merits.


If it doesn't bar the gates of heaven to us it's because of Christ's sacrifice.


If the reference is to this, it seems sinful tendencies will be eliminated from the character before Christians put on incorruption.

The law requires a righteous life from beginning to end. It does not condemn the righteous results of “humanity combined with divinity”. Ellen wrote:

“The law requires righteousness,--a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty. Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ. God can "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3:26. {DA 762.2}

Again, are you saying “the very righteousness of the law [that] is fulfilled in the believer in Christ” is “a form of sinning”, that it is “tainted with sin”, that it “imperfectly fulfills the law”?


But can it, in and of itself, bar the gates of heaven?


Do you believe hereditary “sinful tendencies to wrong” exist in the character we develop? Or, do you believe they exist in the sinful flesh nature we inherit at conception? Ellen wrote:


She consistently says we shall have to resist inbred sin, our hereditary sinful tendencies to wrong, until we are changed in the twinkling of an eye, at which time our nature is changed not our character. Ellen wrote:

"The characters formed in this life will determine the future destiny. When Christ shall come, He will not change the character of any individual. Precious, probationary time is given to be improved in washing our robes of character and making them white in the blood of the Lamb. To remove the stains of sin requires the work of a lifetime. Every day renewed efforts in restraining and denying self are needed. Every day there are new battles to fight and victories to be gained. Every day the soul should be called out in earnest pleading with God for the mighty victories of the cross. {4T 429.2}

"To remove the stains of sin requires the work of a lifetime." But if I'm hearing you right, you believe it is impossible to remove the taint or stain of sin in this lifetime, that "humanity and divinity combined" and its resulting "righteousness and true holiness" will always be stained with sin. Have I misunderstood your point?

Do you believe the "righteousness and true holiness" experienced after probation closes is stained with sin?


You misunderstood my first question and overlooked the second one. If, as you say, there is “no meaningful difference” between offering pardon and actually pardoning, is it safe to conclude you believe God actually pardoned Lucifer?


Ellen wrote, “There will be battles with the powers of darkness, severe struggles against selfishness and inbred sin. {BEcho, June 25, 1894 par. 5} “From the cross to the crown there is earnest work to be done. There is wrestling with inbred sin; there is warfare against outward wrong. {RH, November 29, 1887 par. 12}

She only uses the phrase “inbred sin” twice. She repeats it three times in other articles. There isn’t much to go on. Miles Grant, a Millerite convert and contemporary author, wrote, “All admit that the ‘inbred sin’, as it is called, is received from our parents, by the law of heredity, and in no other way.” He was very familiar with the ministry Ellen White; unfortunately, though, he wrote a book discounting her visions.

Link

No. I don't think "righteousness and true holiness" is ever stained with sin. I don't even think this question makes sense, as these are antonyms.



Since God's word is good, we can trust He would do what He said He would. The conditions for pardon were repentance and submission. That Lucifer chose not to comply with the conditions doesn't change anything.



It seems to me, if you look at the context, she was using the expression along the lines of the definition I quoted. I don't think she was speaking to the law of heredity. I agree with you regarding there not being much to go on.

Yes, it's in this way that I see my own works.

The words of John came forcibly to my mind, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8. I was shown that those who triumphantly claim to be sinless, show by their very boasting that they are far from being without taint of sin. The more clearly fallen man comprehends the character of Christ, the more distrustful will he be of himself, and the more imperfect will his works appear to him, in contrast with those which marked the life of the spotless Redeemer. But those who are far from Jesus, those whose spiritual perceptions are so clouded by error that they cannot comprehend the character of the great Exemplar, conceive of Him as altogether such a one as themselves, and dare to talk of their own perfection of holiness. But they are far from God; they know little of themselves, and less of Christ. {LS 84.3}

This is also what I see Ellen White saying here:

Oh, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving, must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. {1SM 344.2, 3}

"When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man's best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit." {FW 50.1}


Of course! Could anybody, even a baby, enter heaven without Christ's sacrifice?


Sorry, but you are in no better position! According to your view, it's impossible to remove the taint or stain of sin (inbred sin) in this lifetime. Theoretically, in my view, if selfishness (tendencies to wrong) is completely removed, this would allow for the possibility of the taint of sin being removed from the Christian's obedience.

The underlined "T" should be an "R," as Rosangela said this, not I.



I take it you agree that our sinful natures will not changed until Christ's second coming. So if the "taint of sin" can be removed from us, before Christ comes, then it cannot be the case that taint of sin = having a sinful nature.

Tom, thank you for addressing my comments and questions. I think I agree with Miles Grant's definition of "inbred sin". See link above. Scroll up to page 28 to read the short section on "inbred sin". It was a popular term. It makes sense to assume Ellen's use of it was consistent with the times.

Rosangela, thank you, too. I am surprised to learn you believe "humanity and divinity combined" and its resulting "righteousness and true holiness" is "a form of sinning". Also, you might be interested to learn I do not believe "inbred sin" (sinful flesh) counts against us in judgment. It does not require atonement because it is not a commission of sin. Character, not nature, determines our eternal destiny in judgment.