As I stated, this definition is *a* definition of "justified," but not the one that Prescott used, which was similar to the quote I cited from 1SM 343 which says that Christ restored the entire race of men to favor with God.



He pardoned people before dying on the cross, so clearly He had the right to do so.



That's fine, but has nothing to do with your question. You asked how the death of cross benefits those who choose to be lost. EGW explained how in DA 660, the quote I cited.



Sure they did, just like anyone else.

Yes, he has a joint nature, in fact - they are not separable, but he has only God as his Father, not a man. Sorry I wasn't saying it clearly enough B4.

BTW, Every aspect of the gospel record of Jesus is pivotal to salvation: his divine Sonship - hence truly God, his incarnation "in the likeness of sinful flesh", his life, his death, and of course his resurrection, ascension and both phases of his heavenly high priestly ministry.

Human by incarnation not procreation, he both took our condemned state of existence - sinfulness - as his own and overcame it by the power of agape and "the mind of Christ". While qualifying as the Lamb of God with his life of righteousness by faith, the condemnation of nature he took on by becoming man and remaining God's Son is not of a nature inherently his: it would have condemned him to death like it will the wicked who reject his death for them were it not for his character of righteousness, which saves the world, to live to God; he both suffered the judgemental fate of sinful humanity, for the law demands justice against sin & sinfulness, and redeemed us from that fate to eternal life with his righteousness.


He took our nature: what other type of human nature is there, than "sinful flesh"? There's also yet "the mind of Christ". Our church used to be unanimous on the first point, Ellen White among others using the word degraded, etc.

Is Gal 5:17 true?? The Spirit trumps the flesh in a live clash of faith, so it's very true. Christ took such condemned flesh and left it in hell, cursed on the tree. He simultaneously saved the world from it by forging salvivic righteousness in his human character, despite his humanity's sinfulness.

He took sinful flesh to hang it on the cross, amen, and developed righteousness of human character to be the Lamb of God - only after that is he our Example: taking our condemned, depraved nature was taking our race's condemnation for his own but he never let our individual corruption rest on him, becoming carnal, for he learned righteousness by perfect obedience - never falling into temptation, by faith. A difference with us, yes, who learn righteousness after falling into temptation...Had he sinned, his joint nature would have been lost - what a thought, what a risk!

He died our death because of our offence - bearing our guilt & our natural condemnation, and rose again to our life because he is justification. Rom 4:25.

You seem to be presenting 2 arguments:
1) Christ's divine nature would have shielded Him from the condemnation of His human nature
2) Christ's human character would have shielded Him from the condemnation of His human nature

I don't see how these statements can be substantiated and I can't see what the logic is behind them.


When Ellen White says "degraded" she is referring to the physical aspect, when she says "depraved" she has something completely different in view - the moral aspect. Depravity is the opposite of righteousness. Besides, in the moral aspect, "nature" and "character" are one and the same thing.

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

"The human character is depraved, deformed by sin, and terribly unlike that of the first man as he came from the hands of the Creator." --Review and Herald, Nov. 24, 1885. {YRP 57.3}

The following are synonyms for "degraded"(Websters):

Tom, when I said that by "degraded" Ellen White was referring to the physical aspect, I was saying it in reference to Christ.
"Degraded" can be used in a much more general sense than "depraved." "Degraded" doesn't necessarily refer to the moral aspect, while "depraved" necessarily refers to the moral aspect. For instance, in the following sentence,

"Eden, beautiful Eden, was degraded by the introduction of sin." {20MR 151.2}

The word "degraded" obviously refers to the physical aspect, and obviously you couldn't haved used "depraved" here, because "depraved" necessarily refers to the moral aspect.

Now, anyone is free to believe that Christ (or His nature) was corrupt, demoralized, depraved, dissolute, etc. but this view is in disagreement with the Bible and with Ellen White's position. She never applies the word "depraved" to Christ's nature, and what she makes clear about Christ's humanity is the following:

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. ... 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing." {13MR 19.1}

Here are the synonmyns for "degraded":



One of the synomyns is "depraved"! "Degraded" comes from "degrade," which is to step down a grade. How she actually uses the word is set by the context, but not determined by the word itself.

The word "sinful" is used in reference to the human nature which Christ assumed! You can't find a word less offensive than "sinful"!

Of course this is dealing with the physical aspect, as that's what assuming a nature involves. As she points out, the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. The sinful nature can tempt, but it cannot act.

While Christ assumed the same nature we have, our sinful nature, He never acceded to the temptations of that nature.

Yes, I would say simply, that our Christian experience of spirituality & morality is following in Christ's exemplary experience.

Choosing "the mind of Christ" instead of the sinful mind is our daily experience of born again justification, is precisely what Jesus did & had to do. Lk 9:23. He had to choose against the sinful mind and flesh, and choose the Spirit of his Father to follow his Father's will rather than the will of his human flesh and mind instead. He lived a perfectly righteous life so that primarily he could be the Lamb of God...: thereafter he is our Example.

Yes, like we have to choose between the morally depraved mind and body we have and Christ's Spirit, as Christians, so Christ did. Thus he is the world's perfect & complete Saviour.

Look at what I said:
>>"Degraded" doesn't necessarily refer to the moral aspect, while "depraved" necessarily refers to the moral aspect.<<
Your body is degraded, not depraved. If, however, you refer to the moral aspect, both are synonymous.
But I will repeat it: Ellen White never uses the words "depraved" or "corrupt" in relation to Christ ("depraved" = "corrupt"). In fact, she is quite clear that not a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, and that those who refer to Christ's human nature in that way are completely wrong.

In relation to Christ's character, she not only didn't use the words "depraved" or "corrupt," she didn't use the words "degraded" or "defiled" either. But in relation to the human nature which Christ assumed, she used all sorts of negative words, the most offensive one being "sinful"! You can't get any worse than that! She spoke of it being "degraded and defiled by sin."

You're going to have a hard time trying to interpret this as meaning something different than, for example, "corrupted by sin." The point is that sin did something bad to the human nature which Christ assumed, which is the human nature that we have by birth. However, Christ, unlike us, never sinned in that assumed human nature, and so the SOP is careful not to use language that could be taken to imply that He did.

Christ had no taint of or inclination to corruption. And sinful tendencies are obviously a taint of, and an inclination to, corruption.
What is a nature "degraded and defiled by sin"? It's a body affected by sin, not a mind infected with sin. "Depraved" and "corrupt" obviously refer to the moral aspect of man. But the moral aspect has to do with the mind, not with the body.
We don’t sin because we have some kind of physical defect; we sin because we have a moral defect. We are born with a defective character, or a carnal mind, or wrong thought patterns. We are born not loving God nor His law. We are born with propensities of disobedience. That’s why we must be born again.
Take a look again at these parallel statements:

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

"The human character is depraved, deformed by sin, and terribly unlike that of the first man as he came from the hands of the Creator." --Review and Herald, Nov. 24, 1885. {YRP 57.3}