The Nature Of Christ (everyone Read This...please)

[Odale]

Hi Tom,   I just finished reading your reply on a question about The Nature of Christ(10/24/2007). While it does not surprise me a bit, because you are staunch Desmond Ford follower, but I completely reject your ‘understanding’ that Jesus had Adam’s nature BEFORE he fell and sinned. And here is why this idea is rejected in both the Bible and SOP:

1. Before going to Scripture and the S.O.P. – If Jesus took the same nature as Adam BEFORE his fall, then it would have been impossible for Jesus to die. Adam was not subject to death – unless he sinned!!! Jesus did not sin, so therefore(like Adam before his fall) was not subject to death. I will repeat it – Adam could not die unless he fell into sin. If Jesus had the same nature as Adam BEFORE his fall then it would also be impossible for Jesus to die because He never sinned.

2. The Scriptures say:

a. "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"(Romans 1:3) – This is not Adams sinless nature!

b. "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham"(Hebrews 2:16).(Abraham had a nature like you and I do – a fallen nature but yet it says Christ took Abrahams nature – a fallen nature.)

c. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same"(Hebrews 2:14) -(This is not Adams unfallen nature either)

d. "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God"(Hebrews 2:17).(Jesus was made like his brethren…not Adam before the fall.)

e. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."(Hebrews 2:11) -(He(Jesus-the one who is the sanctifier) and they(the believers, the human race-who are sanctified) are one. They are the same and Jesus is not ashamed of us and to call us His brethren.)

3. The Spirit of Prophecy – the quotes you provided as ‘proof’ of Christs unfallen nature are not supporting this damnable idea at all. Christ partook of our(fallen) nature but did not yield to any sin. For Christ to be born with a fallen nature does not mean that he has sin. If you believe that - then you are buying into the Catholic abominable teaching of ‘original sin’, which there is no such teaching in the Bible.

Ellen White agrees with the Bible(and not Des Ford)

My Life Today p. 161.

"Jesus took human nature, passing through infancy, childhood, and youth, that He might know how to sympathize with all and leave an example for all children and youth. He is acquainted with the temptations and weaknesses of children.” –(How could Jesus sympathize with us if he had an unfallen nature? The fact is He couldn’t!)

God’s Amazing Grace, pg. 165

“What a sight was this for Heaven to look upon! Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition.” –(plain and simple –“took our nature in its deteriorated condition”)

Faith I Live By, pg. 74

“Christ did not make-believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature.”

Peter's Council to Parents. p.24

"Satan claimed that it was impossible for human beings to keep God's law. In order to prove the falsity of this claim, Christ left His high command, took upon Himself the nature of man, and came to the earth to stand at the head of the fallen race, in order to show that humanity could withstand the temptations of Satan. On this earth He worked out the problem how to live in accordance with God's standard of right. BEARING OUR NATURE, He was true to God's standard of righteousness, gaining the victory over Satan. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet He was without sin." –(emphasis mine – it plainly says about Jesus, “bearing OUR nature”)  

AND THIS NEXT QUOTE IS SO PLAIN IT NEEDS NO COMMENT

Selected Messages vol.1, pg. 256

"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its FALLEN CONDITION, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."(emphasis mine)

And in finishing, Ellen White, in Desire of Ages, considers the idea of Jesus taking Adams unfallen nature and completely rejects it.

Consider the follow two quotes: Desire of Ages, pg. 49  “It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.   Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”

Also from Desire of Ages, pg. 117  “Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.”

Brother Tom, my suggestion is to study the Bible without Desmond Ford’s preconceived ideology. Stop reading the ‘s on Doctrine’ book and 'Movement of Destiny'. Get back to the truth. These statements are so plain and clear I will be surprised(and saddened) to hear you ignore them.

I would encourage a response to these quotes. I will await your response to these statements.

May God bless you in your studies,

David R.

ANSWER: David, thanks for your follow up.  It is apparent that you support Traditional Adventism.  While this may seem like a worthwhile position that can be defended, I can assure you that it will not hold up.  TA cannot be credibly defended by anyone, it is full of error, myth, and false doctrine, and this point about the Nature of Christ is no exception.

Moreover, any position that recommends itself by censorship, pointing out what books must not to read, is very suspect.  I make it a practice to read all sides of every position so as to better understand the issues.  This is the preferred method to find truth, not censorship and historical revisionism.

For the record, the facts do not support Froom's claim in Movement of Destiny that the Nature of Christ was part of the 1888 debate.  It was not.  Nor is Weiland and Short's agreement with this view correct. It is an absurd theory that is refuted by the facts.http://gospel-herald.com/wieland/brief%20look/1888_brief_look_s202.htm

The SDA Church needs to repudiate Movement of Destiny, even as the Weiland and Short crowd must also repudiate their nonsense about Waggoner and Jones discovering a better Gospel than Luther and Christ having a post fall, sinful nature.  1888 was about the law and the Gospel, as well as the Two Covenants.  The Nature of Christ was not part of the debate. As for your attack on Dr. Ford, it is unwarranted and unfair.  Dr. Ford is a world-class Protestant theologian, an expert on Adventist history, doctrine, and prophecy.  He correctly understands the Gospel as well as Christology and Historic Adventism.  He was correct to stand up at Glacier View and declare that the IJ is not part of the Three Angels Messages as many had been incorrectly taught.  

Dr. Ford was also correct to promote the Protestant version of the Gospel as well as refute those that claimed that the IJ was the judgment of Rev 14:7.  Ellen White agrees with Dr. Ford about the Gospel and the Judgment-- and so too do I.  

Consequently, it is the Traditional SDA's that will have to admit that they are wrong about the definition of the Gospel and the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message--not Dr. Ford.  

So there is no reason to be angry with Dr. Ford for telling the truth about the Three Angels Messages.  The SDA leaders have unfairly maligned him.  At some point, if the Laodicean Message is ever embraced by Adventists, the SDA church will have to apologize to Dr. Ford and set the record straight.  Glacier View was wrong.  It is destroying the Advent Movement, and it will continue to do so until it is repudiated and confessed.

Moreover, all those that support the Nature of Christ, as you do, also support a long list of additional false doctrines that include Old Covenant tithe paying and Sabbath keeping, as well as food and drink laws, not to mention a false belief that Ellen White was like an OT prophet or Apostle that wrote scripture.   

So this idea that Christ had a fallen sinful nature is only one error among a constellation of other false doctrines used to justify and defend Traditional Adventism.   Traditional Adventism is full of error, myth, and much false doctrine.  And it is time for all SDA's to admit this fact and work to resolve this crisis.

Objections Refuted

Your first point of defense for the post fall NOC makes no sense.   Jesus, like Adam could have sinned.  Why do you think otherwise?  

The fact that Adam has a perfect sinless nature, AND DID SIN, is proof positive that Jesus could have also done the same thing with the same pre-fall nature.  Adam was perfectly innocent and sinless, but yet he sinned.  Jesus could have also chosen to sin--just like the pre-fall Adam.  But he did not.   

Use of Scripture

As for your use of scripture, it is wrong.  While the SDA's are experts at orchestrating incorrect passages to prove their many false doctrines, such proof texting is easily overturned and refuted.  

Those that maintain Christ is just like us, and that he possessed a fallen, sinful nature-- like us, overlook many passages that show him to be very different from sinful, mortal man.  

We are children of sinful Adam while Jesus is the Son of God.  This is a great distinction that cannot be overlooked when discussing the Nature of Christ.  It means that he is not just like us and the SDA's need to stop taking such a bizarre and cultic position.

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Rev. 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Luke 9:35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”

Jesus is not just like us, as many SDA's teach and it is absurd to think such a thing.  Rather, he is the pre-existent Son of God that came to earth as a Jewish child; born of the Spirit in a miraculous manner to a virgin woman.  This is all very different from our sinful and earthly pedigree that only flows back to sinful Adam.    Jesus was very different from us.

Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Heb. 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Heb. 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,   “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,   BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

All humans, EXCEPT JESUS, were born with fallen, sinful natures inherited from Adam.  Which means that they are prone to sin automatically and naturally.  Thus all of Adams children were born as sinners under the wrath of God, except for Jesus.  He alone was able, with his perfect moral nature, to please God from his birth.  Why?  Because he was born sinless, immune to original sin.

Eph. 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.  Unable to please God.

Jesus did not come to earth as a sinful child, as many SDA's teach.  If that were the case, then he would have been a sinner in need of salvation and righteousness from another.  But Jesus was not born a sinner.  Nor was he born under the wrath of God.  Unlike us, he had no "sinful passions."  He had a choice to sin, but no desire because the Law was a natural part of his nature.  Just like Adam in his pre-fall nature.

Psa. 40:8    I delight to do Your will, O my God;   Your Law is within my heart.”

Rom. 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom. 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. Jesus is very different from sinful man.  He had no "sinful passions" like us, and thus he pleased God from the very beginning of his earthly life. Matt. 12:18 “BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN;  MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED;   

No mortal should ever think that Jesus is just like him or her, or that they can ever be like Jesus.  That is blasphemy and rank heresy.  Jesus was pre-existent, divine, and sinless.  He was greater than Adam, even as he agreed to forever subordinate himself to God, confining himself to a human body in order to facilitate the Gospel.  

Unlike us, Jesus was born with moral perfection and a Celestial pedigree that no one in the universe can match.  He had no sin in his nature, which cannot be said for any child of Adam, even as he was eternal and divine.

Heb. 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. Heb. 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Jesus was the divine Son of God-- and we are not.  How dare any SDA claim that they are just like Christ?  This is utter nonsense and blasphemy.

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Then comes the end when Christ bows down to God, and takes his place as the head of the Human Race.  The Second Adam is the hero of the universe because he has defeated Satan, vindicated his Father, and saved planet Earth.   What a story!  

1Cor. 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 1Cor. 15:24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 1Cor. 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 1Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 1Cor. 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 1Cor. 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Who dares claim to be like Christ?  Who will stand up and say that Jesus is not special and that he is no different from anyone else on earth?  The SDA's?  If this is what they are going to say, then they won't be there to worship the Second Adam.  

The LIKENESS of Flesh

The SDA's are wrong to think that "likeness" in the Bible means an exact duplicate.  This point can be easily established from the Creation Story whereby man was created in the "image" and "likeness" of God.

Gen. 1:26  Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;  

Gen. 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

Does anyone dare think that man is the exact replica of God?  Hardly.  So why take the position that this same terminology when applied to Christ must mean an "exact duplicate"?  

When the NT says that Jesus came to earth in "the likeness of sinful flesh", it does not mean that he was a duplicate in every respect.  We know that he was not the same as any other mortal, so why must SDA's pretend otherwise.  Likeness does not mean exact copy.

Rom. 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

In the flesh means human, even Jewish.  But it does not mean that Jesus had a sinful human nature like all those that followed Adam.  Those SDA's that think Jesus had a sinful nature do not understand or embrace the doctrine of original sin.  Why?  Because they are legalists that also misunderstand the Gospel and the fundamentals of the Protestant and Adventist Faith.

1Tim. 3:16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:   He who was revealed in the flesh,   Was vindicated in the Spirit,   Seen by angels,   Proclaimed among the nations,   Believed on in the world,   Taken up in glory.

1John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 2John 1:7  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

In the flesh does not mean that Christ had a sinful nature.  He did not.  His nature was perfect, holy, and without sin.  He did not inherit the sin of Adam, as we all do; rather, Jesus inherited the righteousness of God, his father, even as he pleased him in all things.

Heb. 5:5  So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,   “YOU ARE MY SON,   TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;

Rom. 10:2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. Rom. 10:3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. Rom. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

John 3:35 “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.

Luke 9:35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”

Jesus represents the Righteousness of God, even as he is the Son of God.  He could not have such a perfect moral nature and at the same time be a sinful mortal like all the rest of Adams children.  He did not have a carnal nature like all others.  He was very special and different from us.  He was like Adam before the fall, not like us after the fall.

The Two Adams

There are two Adams in scripture.  The first Adam came from the earth and sinned, but the second that was sent from heaven did not.  Christ was the second or "last" Adam.  He represented the human race and proved that humans, in their unfallen state, could live without sin.   Thus he did what Adam, in his pre-fallen nature, had failed to do.

1Cor. 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1Cor. 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 1Cor. 15:47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 1Cor. 15:48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

The "last Adam" did not have to possess a fallen nature to undo what the first Adam had done.  In fact, he had to have the same sinless nature as Adam before the fall in order for the test to be fair.  The second Adam had the same unfallen moral nature as the first.  He was without sin and without the desire to sin.  Just like the first Adam.

The first Adam had no desire to sin, nor was there any premeditation or natural desire to sin.  Both he and Eve were innocent and sinless.  Which is why Paul says that sin entered the world through trickery and deceit, not by human premeditation and plan.

1Tim. 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 1Tim. 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

See how Paul contrasts the Two Adams.  One brought death to the human race while the second brought mercy, righteousness, and justification.  But we can also compare the two by noting that each had a sinless human nature.  The first Adam fell, even though he had a perfect and sinless moral nature, but the second Adam did not.  But they both had sinless natures.

Rom. 5:15  But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Rom. 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. Rom. 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:18  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. There was no need for the Second Adam to come to earth with a fallen and sinful human nature and prove anything.  He only had to be like the first Adam BEFORE THE FALL, which was sinless and innocent.  Thus, the Second Adam was like the first, a PRE-FALL condition of moral perfection and sinlessness, which is not to be confused with his taking on the post fall physical condition of all 1st century Jews.

Heb. 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,   “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,   BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

Although Christ came to earth in the fallen, 1st century body of mankind, this was a PHYSICAL issue, not a moral one.  He was still sinless like the first Adam, even though his body represented the PHYSICAL heredity of fallen man. Phil. 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, Phil. 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, Phil. 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

The term "likeness of men", when applied to Jesus, does not mean fallen or sinful, nor does it mean that Christ was exactly like us in nature.  That would be an impossibility that is not supported by the Word.   The SDA's need to stop supporting such a legalistic view of Christology.

Christ NOT Our Example for Old Covenant Obedience

The reason why SDA's claim that Jesus had a fallen nature is because they are legalists that view him primarily as an example to follow.  But this idea that Christ is our example to show us how to obey the law and please God is an abomination.  The NT does not teach such a doctrine.  In fact, the Apostle Paul teaches that he, Paul, is to be our example and MODEL, and so too was Timothy.  

So the SDA's have been caught once again promoting phantom doctrines in order to support their confusion about the law and the Gospel.  They have legalistically promoted Jesus as the Model Man, even as they have incorrectly claimed that he is just like us, so that we can overcome sin and be like him.  

But the NT teaches that Paul is the Model Man for the church to follow, even as Jesus is our example for suffering.  This is very different from what the SDA's teach.

Phil. 3:17  Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

2Th. 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you,

2Th. 3:9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.

1Tim. 4:12 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. Titus 2:7 in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified,

So the Apostles are to be our "pattern" and "example."  How come the SDA's never teach this doctrine?

The Apostles also taught that Christ is our example for persecution and suffering.  And it was on this point that they pointed to Jesus as our "example." 1Pet. 2:21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

Moreover, Jesus also declared that the church was to follow his example about foot washing and the Lord's Supper.  Here is a point where the SDA's have correctly followed some of the scriptures,(about foot washing), even as they denied Jesus teaching about wine and the Lord's Supper.   

They have incorrectly decided that Jesus meant the church should drink pasteurized Welch's Grape Juice to represent the blood of Christ.  Such a doctrine is worthless, absurd, and wrong.  So the SDA's refuse to follow the example of Jesus about the Lord's Supper, even though they claim he is their example in all things.  They are hypocrites for all to see on this point and many others.

The SDA's fail to teach that the Apostles should be our examples, even as they follow Jesus example in some things, and repudiate what they don't like.  But this idea that we are to battle sin to obtain acceptance from God through obedience to the law is wrong.  This idea that Jesus is our example for overcoming sin and pleasing God is heretical garbage.

John 13:12  So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? John 13:13 “You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. John 13:14 “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. John 13:15 “For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.

Matt. 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; Matt. 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

The SDA's need to pay much closer attention to the Bible and the Words of the Apostles.  They have much to learn about the Gospel Story, including the correct definition of the Nature of Christ and the Lord's Supper.

Use of Ellen White

It is unfortunate that the Adventist Community today cannot depend on the White Estate to honestly explain church history and tell the truth about Ellen White.  The leaders of the church have been very dishonest about what she believed and taught.  They have suppressed, distorted, and manipulated her writings so badly, including her participation in the 1888 debate, that much of what all SDA's have been taught about her and the Fundamentals is wrong and incorrect.http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/White-Estate.htm

Until the White Estate corrects the historical record, there is little point in trying to use a list of quotes from Ellen White to prove anything.  Unless one understands the historic context correctly, the true meaning is often lost.  And it is clear that the SDA's were covering up and hiding their Battle Creek history, which featured a great debate over the law and the Gospel.

This is an important point because Ellen White changed some of her views later in life.  Which means that her earlier, pre-1888 positions about the law and the Gospel are dramatically different from those dated after 1888.  This is why there are so many conflicting statements from Ellen White in the public domain. So the dates and context are critical to understand the mind of Ellen White correctly.

In addition, Ellen White has no doctrinal authority as if she were an Apostle or an Old Testament prophet.  The SDA Pioneers were Protestant, and thus they took the correct position that only the Bible could be the source of doctrine.  It is a pity that the White Estate took an opposing hermeneutical position that has been embraced by most all that support Traditional Adventism.  This great error will have to be repudiated if the SDA's ever want to understand Ellen White.http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/test-Ellen-White-true.htm

However, Ellen White was a founder of the SDA church, and thus she has teaching authority within that Community as one of the founders.  Moreover, she is a historical figure that deserves to be heard and understood.  With this in mind, here are some passages from Ellen White that support the correct Pre-Fall condition of the Nature of Christ.  

The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist.  Education. 29.1  

When man transgressed the divine law, his nature became evil, and he was in harmony, and not at variance, with Satan. There exists naturally no enmity between sinful man and the originator of sin. Both became evil through apostasy. GC 505

It is clear that Ellen White supports the Protestant doctrine of Original Sin.  Moreover, she also makes it clear that Jesus did NOT have our sinful passions.  So she is supporting the Pre- Fall position of the Protestant Faith.

"He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing LIKE PASSIONS"(Testimonies, vol. 2 p. 202

"He was a mighty petitioner, NOT POSSESSING THE PASSIONS OF OUR HUMAN, FALLEN NATURES"(Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 508,509.)

Ellen White, even when she was young, did not think that Jesus was just like us.  And thus she repudiates Traditional Adventism on this point, before 1888 as well as afterwards.

"It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, BUT LET EVERY HUMAN BEING BE WARNED FROM THE GROUND OF MAKING CHRIST ALTOGETHER HUMAN, SUCH AS ONE AS OURSELVES; FOR IT CANNOT BE." SDA Bible Commentary, vol 5 pp. 1128, 1129. Thus Ellen White understands that Jesus had a DIFFERENT nature from all others.  More than that, she calls Jesus the Second Adam and makes it clear that his test was to "begin where the first Adam began."  And that would be a in a PRE-FALL condition.  That is the starting place for Jesus, when it comes to a discussion about his human nature.

Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.—The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898.

In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. In heaven was heard the voice, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord."—The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.

In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1181.

Although Ellen White writes that Christ took on man's fallen nature, she does not mean what the legalists claim.  She does not teach that Jesus was just like us, or that he had a fallen, carnal, or sinful nature.  Those that say such things have been misled and deceived by the White Estate on this and many other points.  

Listen to Ellen White and understand that she does not support Traditional Adventism about the Nature of Christ.  Listen to her refute Weiland and Short and declare that Jesus nature was very different from all others except the first Adam before he fell.

No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by His companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and He refused decidedly. In a moment He distinguished between right and wrong, and placed sin in the light of God's commands, holding up the law as a mirror, which reflected light upon wrong. It was this keen discrimination between right and wrong that often provoked Christ's brothers to anger. Yet His appeals and entreaties, and the sorrow expressed in His countenance, revealed such a tender, earnest love for them that they were ashamed of having tempted Him to deviate from His strict sense of justice and loyalty(YI Sept. 8, 1898). {5BC 1117.3}

Ellen White understands that Christ did NOT possess the same sinful, corrupt, and fallen nature that we posses.  This is the correct, Pre-Fall position.  Listen again to Ellen White repudiate this nonsense about Jesus being just like us:

Through being partakers of the divine nature we may stand pure and holy and undefiled. The Godhead was not made human, and the human was not deified by the blending together of the two natures. Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering.--Manuscript 94, 1893. {3SM 131.1} He Took the Nature but Not the Sinfulness of Man:  This is the Pre-Fall position.

Adam and Eve were given a probation in which to return to their allegiance; and in this plan of benevolence all their posterity were embraced. After the fall, Christ became Adam's instructor. He acted in God's stead toward humanity, saving the race from immediate death. He took upon Him the work of mediator between God and man. In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. In heaven was heard the voice, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." {ST, May 29, 1901 par. 11}

Ellen White does not teach that Christ had a fallen human nature like Adam AFTER THE FALL.  She makes it plain; over and over that he had NO post fall "inherent propensities of disobedience."   Listen to Ellen White:

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."  - 5BC p. 1128.

So all SDA's need to stop promoting false doctrine in the name of Ellen White.  She does not support this position of Traditional Adventism that claims Jesus had a fallen human nature like Adam after he fell.  And it is time that the White Estate puts a stop to all this confusion and double-talk about what Ellen White teaches.  

I hope this information will help all those that are honestly seeking for truth.  It should be obvious that Jesus was not like us for many reasons.  And this is the position of Ellen White.  He had the perfect sinless nature of Adam BEFORE the fall.  This is the Protestant position as well as that of the Advent Movement.  All those that think Jesus is just like them and that we can become just like him are very confused and wrong.  They need to repent and embrace the Gospel.

Tom Norris for All Experts.com

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

Hi Tom,  Thanks for finally replying. Do you purposely wait to answer these types of questions in hoping they get burried behind other questions people have asked on the board to others?  Yes Jesus was different than us - no Adventist(that I know of says otherwise like you claim) - He was fully God and He was fully man - a Mystery for sure. Let's face it there are some aspects of this subject that have not been opened to us Christians BUT you are very accusing when it comes to your claims about SDA'a.(To my knowledge) there are NO Adventist who try to make Jesus 'just like us' in the sense that you are implying - COMPLETLY HUMAN. This is not the case. I am dwelling on the human aspect of Christ. Like you quoted by Ellen White - we are to be cafeful about how we talk about the human nature of Christ.  Jesus did not sin! We both agree on this. If Adam never sinned-Adam would not/could not have died. I am sure you agree with this. If Jesus had the same exact nature as Adam BEFORE his fall - plain and simple Jesus could not die. The ONLY difference between us and Jesus(as for the human side and nature) is Jesus had the Holy Spirit with him from birth. Now one may think that is still a disadvantage - when we become a Christian - we can have the Holy Spirits power as well. So - Jesus at His birth and us when we become a Christian is the same. Jesus had no advantages that we can't have when we become a Christian.  All the Scriptures you present - I'll be honest - I don't know what you are trying to present and prove with most of them about the nature of Christ. Please re-read the Scriptures I gave you - could you please address them all?  You have admitted that you buy into what you call the Protestant doctrine of Original Sin. This is a CATHOLIC doctrine. Tom, you are in great error with this teaching. I know of no other way to put it.  How you can emphasise following the Apostles example over following Jesus' example is beyond me.  The Ellen White quotes I have provided you - you have not addressed or refuted(explain them for me if I am misunderstanding them). You are talking out of both sides of your mouth(as well as Dr. Ford) when it comes to Ellen White. You will freely use her writings to support some distorted point BUT condemn her writings to at least some degree as being changed or distorted by the White Estate(as you just have) when someone else uses her writings to clearly refute what you have said. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  As for Dr. Ford - so he is an accomplished theologian, a terrific speaker - the way you present this comes accross as how dare a puny, no theological training guy like myslef question Dr. Ford because he has all these degrees. Really Tom is that how you think. I know it's the way Dr. Ford thinks. As for you thinking I'm attacking Dr. Ford - I'm only attacking his philosophy and doctrinal errors. From what I've read(and it's very extensive) he is a wonderful Christian. Let me paraphrase Ellen White for you: she says it will be the common lay people 'men from the plow' who will finish this work of spreading the gospel for and when Jesus comes.  As for the s on Doctrine & Movement of Destiny books- I was being 'sarcastic' in saying you shouldn't read them. I was implying that this is where these errors on Christ's nature surfaced for the most part. SDA's are the only one's that teach Christ had a fallen nature(after Adam sinned) - the SDA church always taught that and nothing else since it's birth - but in the 1950's with QonD book that changed. I'm sure you know the story about this book, do you? Movement of Destiny is a beautiful book in many aspects BUT/EXCEPT it deceptively plays down Christ's nature, etc...  Dr. Ford was correctly 'thrown out' of the SDA church because he was teaching heresy. Dr. Ford did much damage to the SDA church. No doubt he had a tremendous impact, but it was for the worse.

Thanks and God Bless,

David R.

[sheridan93]

s:  You are not being honest about the facts.  Traditional SDA's teach that Christ is very much like us.  That's why they claim he had a fallen human nature like Adam AFTER the fall.  They downplay or refute original sin so that they can teach that Jesus was just like us, and that we can be essentially like him.

Thus, the SDA's have built up a false Gospel based upon this Pelegian heresy about the Nature of Christ.  To prove this point, just listen to a Traditional SDA apologist complain about the evangelicals within the SDA church that promote the Protestant position on the Nature of Christ.  Listen to them refute OS and the pre-fall Nature of Christ.

"Now, because of the evangelical position on sin, we are being told that Christ could not be our substitute if He really took our fallen nature from birth.  Instead of a simple and straightforward gospel, we are now forced to devise rather complicated devices to allow Christ to take part of human heredity while being exempted from certain hereditary traits."

-------------------------------------

Traditional SDA's ignore Original Sin and promote the position that Jesus was NOT exempted from our fallen, sinful natures.  They teach that he possessed a sinful moral nature like Adam AFTER the fall.  Why?  Because they do not want Jesus to be different from us.   They are trying to manipulate Christology so that it fits with their false Gospel of last day perfectionism.  

So they have set up a contrived and silly doctrine about the NOC that has no support from either the RC's or the Protestants.  The Traditional SDA's are caught up in the cultic defense of traditional, myths and legends.  Their twisted version about the NOC is just another point where their cultic theology has fallen flat.

Jesus human nature was very different from us in a number of ways, including the fact that he had a sinless and holy nature like Adam BEFORE the fall.  We have a post fall, SINFUL nature, but he does not.  This is a huge difference that cannot be ignored or denied.

Why do the SDA's want Jesus to be just like their fallen nature instead of like Adam's sinless, pre-fallen character?  So they can model Jesus to "overcome sin."  Thus they want to be like him and stand sinless, holy, and righteous prior to the close of probation just like him.  

Listen to the TSDA's admit why they refuse to embrace the pre fall Nature of Christ.  Hear them complain that this doctrine does not support their teaching about perfection.  This is their real problem, they have a false Gospel and therefore most all their other doctrines are also skewed and false, including their twisted view of the Nature of Christ.    "This new-to-Adventism view of(Original) sin also makes it impossible to make significant statements about the possibility of overcoming sin totally before the close of probation.  Once again, clarity and simplicity have been sacrificed for the sake of compromise with non-Adventist belief systems.  We are searching for theological acceptance, but is the price far too high?"http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/articles/pri-tosi.html

To the credit of the modern SDA's, they have been pulling away from Traditional Adventism ever since Glacier View in 1980.  The church leaders were correct to start phasing out these cultic and legalistic views about the NOC and perfectionism because they know that they are not Protestant or credible.  But they have moved far too slowly, even as they still cling to many of their favorite false doctrines, which they have no desire to reform.

The Protestant Gospel does not support the SDA's position about "overcoming sin."  And neither does Historic Adventism. Jesus had a sinless nature like Adam BEFORE THE FALL, not like Adam, or us, after the fall.  

Moreover, OS is a correct doctrine, but Jesus was immune to Original sin.  We are born infected with sin and rebellion against God, but Jesus was born with an opposite nature from us.  

 Let's face it there are some aspects of this subject that have not been opened to us Christians BUT you are very accusing when it comes to your claims about SDA's.(To my knowledge) there are NO Adventist who try to make Jesus 'just like us' in the sense that you are implying - COMPLETLY HUMAN. This is not the case. I am dwelling on the human aspect of Christ. Like you quoted by Ellen White - we are to be careful about how we talk about the human nature of Christ.

ANSWER:  Traditional SDA's make it a point to declare that Jesus is just like us.  They do this for a reason and with a purpose.  So why pretend that this is not part of the debate?  Why deny the facts?

Moreover, I am only dealing with established doctrines within the church.  Original Sin is a very old concept, and so too the articulation about the Nature of Christ.  It is the SDA's that are taking radical and cultic positions that have no credibility within the Christian Community.  In fact, they are repeating some of the same old Pelegian errors of the past.

Like I said, the TSDA's deny Original Sin and think that Jesus came in the same, FALLEN NATURE as us when that is not true.  Listen again as the TSDA's preach that Jesus "truly became one with us and one of us."  By which they mean he took the sinful nature of Adam after the fall. "Jesus took our nature, and in it lived a life of perfect obedience.  I guess we were looking for something altogether different. We so preferred the alien, fictionalized, "almighty" God—a God who was so far above and so far away that we could be excused from our responsibility to obey! "

"We didn't want to have to choose. We didn't want to have to stand on one side or the other of the grace-line—"the line of demarcation between God's children and the multitude that believe not." It is unquestionably because of this—because God came too close for our comfort—because He truly became one with us and one of us—that "He is despised and rejected of men."http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/sermons/sermonsLK/kir-unes.html

This whole push for the post fall Nature of Christ within the SDA church is to support Sabbatarian legalism.  It helps the TSDA's promote their false Gospel of works and last day perfectionism.  This is why they hold fast to their cultic position about the Nature of Christ.  

Listen to the TSDA's admit that this battle over the NOC is all about legalism and perfection.  Listen to them mock the Reformers:

"One individual astutely observed some twenty-seven years ago, "Those who teach that Christ took a superior human nature draw the logical conclusion that it is impossible for the rest of mankind to perfectly obey the law of Jehovah in this life."  This is really a very logical and simple deduction.  If Christ was able to obey perfectly because of His perfect spiritual nature, then as long as we have imperfect, fallen natures, perfect obedience is impossible.  In that case, the fulfillment of Revelation 14:5 is in real jeopardy…"

"If Christ did not prove perfect obedience in a fallen nature, then the perfect obedience of the final generation remains only a theoretical possibility.  But if Christ demonstrated that fallen nature can return perfect obedience to God's law, then the victory of the 144,000 is much more than a theoretical possibility.  It becomes a promise based on real, tangible, factual evidence."http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/articles/pri-esse.html

The Gospel is not about our works, much less an Old Covenant demonstration of obedience to the Decalogue.  The sooner the SDA's understand New covenant Theology, the sooner they will understand that they are wrong about the Nature of Christ, the Gospel, and many other things as well.

 Jesus did not sin! We both agree on this. Tom Norris said:  But we do not agree on the Nature of Christ or the correct definition of Original Sin.  Did Jesus come to earth with a sinless human nature like Adam before the fall?  I say YES.  You say NO. Can Original Sin be overcome in this life, and is perfection possible prior to the Second Coming?  I say NO; you say YES.  

There is a long list of additional doctrines that separate us.

Traditional Adventism is over.  It cannot be defended or supported any longer.  The whole system is corrupt and full of myths and half-truths.  It is time to examine every doctrine and correct whatever is not credible.  The NOC is a good place to start.

 If Adam never sinned-Adam would not/could not have died.  I am sure you agree with this.

[baigh75]

:  The early SDA Pioneers were uneducated and knew very little about theology. Consequently, they held all kinds of incorrect views about many things.  

Moreover, they did not debate or argue about the NOC during the 19th century, even though this is the official position of Froom and the church about 1888.  Had the White Estate told the truth about 1888, everyone would have known this fact and not become confused about the NOC as if it were a settled fact.  There are far too many myths and false assumptions surrounding the doctrinal development of the SDA church and it is time for the truth to emerge about Adventist history.

I suggest that you start researching the issues and stop assuming that Traditional Adventism is correct and credible.  It is neither.

The discovery of error within the Adventist Apocalyptic calls for correction, regardless of how many years false doctrine has been embraced by the church.  This is the true spirit of the Advent Movement and it is time that all SDA's started to view the search for truth as the most important of all pursuits.

 Movement of Destiny is a beautiful book in many aspects BUT/EXCEPT it deceptively plays down Christ's nature, etc...

[hussein]

:  Dr. Ford was exiled from the SDA church for telling the truth about the Gospel and the Three Angels Messages.  He refused to support false doctrines and fabricated prophecy, even as he refused to pretend that Ellen White had any doctrinal authority as if she were an Apostle or OT Prophet.  THIS is why he was removed.

Those that think Dr. Ford was "correctly thrown out of the SDA church" do not understand Historic Adventism or the Three Angels Messages correctly.  Nor do they understand 1888 or Ellen White's participation in that Gospel debate.   They are very confused about church history and the Gospel.

Dr. Ford was correct and the leaders were wrong.  MILLIONS of SDA's have since come to this same conclusion, including many SDA Pastors and scholars, even as more reach this same conclusion all the time.

When the SDA church officially "threw out" Dr. Ford, they also did the same thing to the Protestant Gospel that he represented.  Thus the SDA's have been playing church since 1980 without the Gospel.  They have been mocking God every week with their worthless services and empty words.  No wonder that Jesus in the LM calls them wretched and blind and naked.  

It is time for all those that support Traditional Adventism to stop playing apologetics and study the facts.  Glacier View was a dishonest and wicked church trial that was based on historical and theological fraud from the White Estate and the Review.  This farce cannot stand as truth for the Advent Movement.

Here are some additional links to help you study this topic.  http://www.jcu.edu/Bible/BibleIntroReadings/OriginalSin.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sinhttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/reflections-on-luthers-novel.htmlhttp://www.catholic.net/RCC/Catechism/3/l14.htmlhttp://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum521.htmhttp://groups.msn.com/PrayTheRosary/thesacraments.msnwhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscencehttp://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/original_sin.html

This is a large topic and I hope this information helps you better understand these issues.

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com  

[Nevada]

:  WRONG.  We are not the "same" as Jesus and that will never be the case.  WE ARE NOT THE SAME.  He was never like us.  He was, and still is, perfect and sinless, having no desire to sin.  He was like Adam before the fall.  THIS IS NOT LIKE US.  

 All the Scriptures you present - I'll be honest - I don't know what you are trying to present and prove with most of them about the nature of Christ. Please re-read the Scriptures I gave you - could you please address them all?

[fychan46]

s:  I try to answer all questions as fast as possible.  However, many questions are long and complex, containing multiple parts that require detailed and referenced answers.  

So you need not be so suspicious or paranoid.   There is no reason for any SDA to be fearful of dealing openly and honestly with the study of the Bible and Church history.  I agree with Ellen White that all controverted points of doctrine are to be investigated fairly, honestly, and openly, without censorship, double-talk or diversion. Yes Jesus was different than us - no Adventist(that I know of says otherwise like you claim) - He was fully God and He was fully man - a Mystery for sure. Tom Norris

[Chandrak]

:  Today, no genuine scholar or honest theologian will try to defend Traditional Adventism.  It is an impossible task.  So let all amateurs understand this point so they can stop embarrassing themselves.

All SDA's need to stop pretending that Adventism has all the truth as they have arrogantly claimed for so many years.  This is total nonsense and it is time for all to honestly admit the facts and deal with the problems.

SDA's are the only one's that teach Christ had a fallen nature(after Adam sinned) - the SDA church always taught that and nothing else since it's birth - but in the 1950's with QonD book that changed. I'm sure you know the story about this book, do you?

[Beaumont]

:  Because this is what the NT teaches.  Don't shoot the messenger.  This is what the Apostles teach.  So this is the truth of the matter.  And so too is the fact that they did not teach perfectionism.  

 The Ellen White quotes I have provided you - you have not addressed or refuted(explain them for me if I am misunderstanding them).

[Gwen]

:  I do agree with this position because access to the Tree of Life would not have been removed.  

Gen. 3:22  Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— Gen. 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. Gen. 3:24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

 If Jesus had the same exact nature as Adam BEFORE his fall - plain and simple Jesus could not die. Tom Norris said:  Why would you say such a thing?  Your logic makes no sense, nor are you paying attention to the Gospel Story.

Jesus came to Earth--to die.  This was his mission and purpose.  This was the plan of God.  Jesus came with the sinless nature of Adam before the fall to die on the cross as a sacrifice for mankind.  

While he inherited the post fall physical nature of mankind, he did not share in his fallen sinful nature.  Christ was exempt from Original Sin.  He was perfect and holy so that he could be a sinless sacrifice. So he was perfect, even as he was meant to die for the sins of the world.  This is very different from us.

 The ONLY difference between us and Jesus(as for the human side and nature) is Jesus had the Holy Spirit with him from birth.

[Alexander]

:  Just because a doctrine had its origins with the Roman Catholic Church, that does not automatically make it is wrong.   The RC church has made numerous contributions to Christian doctrine, and it is unfair not to acknowledge the good that they have done for the Kingdom of God.

For example, the Cannon(Bible) we have today is the result of the RCC.  They were correct to gather up the works of the Apostles and preserve these writings even as they correctly fought against the anti-Semite Marcion and others who wanted to take the church in a direction that rejected the Old Testament, including and the Decalogue and the Jewish God.   

The RCC church is also correct to teach that only genuine wine can represent Christ's blood.  It is the SDA's that are wrong on this point to think that Welch's Grape Juice is the authorized symbol for the Lord's Supper.  The RC's are correct on this point.  So not everything that the RC's teach is wrong, and not everything that the SDA's teach is correct.  In fact, the SDA's teach far more false doctrine than true.  Just like the RCC.

Moreover, the essential doctrine of original sin is not only RC, it is also supported by Luther and the Protestants.  The church correctly condemned those that denied Original Sin, which means that both the RC's and the Protestants would correctly reject Traditional Adventism.

However, there is a big difference between the RC and Protestant interpretation of Original Sin because there is a big difference in their Gospels.  And guess what?  The SDA's have embraced the RC view of OS, not the Protestant interpretation.  What a tragic mistake!

Original Sin

Both Catholics and Protestant embrace the doctrine of Original Sin.  Both believe that Adams guilt is transmitted to the entire human race.  However, they both deal with this sinful heredity problem differently because they do not view salvation the same.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

The Catholics view the effects of Original Sin as something that can be forgiven at Baptism and removed from the sinner.  But not the Protestants.  Here is a great difference that speaks volumes about the debate in the church over the Gospel. ---------------------------------------

Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting.

The Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Luther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to their theology the following propositions: * Original justice with all its gifts and graces was due to man as an integral part of his nature; * Concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin;

* Baptism, since it does not extinguish concupiscence, does not really remit the guilt of original sin, but only effects that it is no longer imputed to man and no longer draws down condemnation on him. This position is held also by the Anglican Church in its Thirty-nine Articles and its Book of Common Prayer.

The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent(Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory…http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

------------------------------------------------

While the RC Gospel declares that JBF counters OS, and wipes the sinners slate clean, they also teach that once this has taken place, the believer must develop a good character by obedience and prayer, etc.  Thus, salvation is a lifetime process that starts with Baptism and JBF to mitigate OS, even as Sanctification takes over and becomes the point of the Gospel "struggle."  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

With OS removed, the believer is free to form the proper character and not sin. The believer is now in a similar state of the pre-fall Adam, even as he or she is free to choose to sin or not.  Thus, the RC's teach, like the TSDA's, that our fallen heredity cannot be used as an excuse for sin, even as our "character determines our condemnation or salvation."  Which means that the Gospel is focused on Sanctification, good works, and character development.http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/original-sin-pelagianism.htm

However, the Protestants repudiated this formula and declared that OS is never removed in this life, and neither is the fallen nature of sinful man.  Therefore, JBF becomes the only doctrine that can provide Righteousness and salvation.  It applies to the past, as well as to the present and the future.  This is the primary doctrine of the church, the heart of the Gospel, which is not to be confused with Sanctification or law keeping.

For the Protestant, Sanctification has no merit, nor is character development the test for entering the Kingdom of God.   Thus, for the Protestant, the believer is fully and instantaneously saved upon belief in Christ.   Even though Original Sin is still present, and the believer is still a sinner, he is saved nonetheless because of his faith the Gospel.  Salvation is not based on sanctification or character development as both the RC's and the SDA's teach.  JBF is not just for past sins.  

It is a pity that the SDA's have lost their historical connection to the Protestant Movement.  During the 3rd Angels Message they have opted for the RC version of the Gospel.   Thus they have repudiated Historic Adventism, including William Miller who did not teach a false Gospel or last day perfectionism.  The SDA's have gone their own way and bolted from the Protestant Path many years ago.  Only by repenting for 1888 and Glacier View in 1980 can they save the church from further confusion and self-destruction.

The Battle Creek SDA's became flaming legalists and embraced the RC version of the Gospel.  They too taught that JBF was for the past and that people had to form righteous characters in order to be saved and pass the Investigative Judgment.  Such gross legalism was exposed during the 1888 period when Jones and Waggoner accused Uriah Smith of teaching the false Gospel of Rome.  And the repercussions of that debate are still being felt within modern Adventism.

If fact, the 20th century SDA's went on to repeat their legalism of the 1888 era by exiling Dr. Ford and officially embracing the false Gospel of Uriah Smith in 1980.  So the SDA's just keep repeating the same old mistakes about the law and the Gospel.  Which is why so many today are trying to minimize the effects of OS, even as they claim that Jesus is just like us.  

The Traditional SDA today still claims that JBF is limited to the forgiveness of PAST sins, even as they add Sanctification and character development to the definition of the Gospel.  Like the RC's, salvation is a life long process for an SDA.  They must prove that they are safe to save. Listen to the modern TSDA's make this point.  They claim that our works and character is what "determines" our salvation, even as they repudiate the doctrine of OS. "It is the character that determines our condemnation or salvation, not our inherited nature. If we are saved, we will take our character to heaven exactly as we developed it on earth, while our nature will be totally recreated. In the matter of the gospel, the focus must always be on character development, which is the result of many personal choices. Sin and salvation always have to do with the character, not with inherited nature."http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/sermons/pri-birt.html

No Protestant would ever teach such confusion and the SDA's should be ashamed of themselves.  They don't understand OS or the Nature of Christ correctly, even as they embrace the Gospel of Rome.  In fact, the SDA's today are guilty of embracing semi-Pelagianism, an old heresy that was correctly condemned by the church.  This is the position of all those that think Jesus came to earth in the post fall nature of sinful man.   

Pelagianism

Here is a summery of Pelagianism.  Note how close it comes to a number of TSDA teachings.  The second point repudiates the doctrine of Original Sin, and the last point, which fits with the last day perfectionism of the TSDA's.

1. That Adam would have died even if he had not sin;

2. That the sin of Adam injured himself alone, not the human race;

3. That newborn children are in the same condition as Adam was before the Fall; corollary; that infants, though unbaptized, have eternal life;

4. That the whole human race does not die because of Adam's death or sin, nor will it rise again because of Christ's resurrection;

5. That the Old Testament Law, as well as the New Testament Gospel, gives entrance to heaven; and

6. That even before the coming of Christ there were men who were entirely without sin.http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/pelagianism.html

No wonder that scholars have discovered that SDA's were semi-Pelagian.  It is clear that they have misunderstood both the Gospel and the doctrine of Original Sin.  Listen to Paxton on this point:

Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the special "remnant-heirs" of the Reformers. Notwithstanding this, in the period of 1844-1950 the fundamental theology of the Adventist gospel sometimes has more affinity with the Roman Catholic Council of Trent than with the Protestant Reformers.

Up to this point in our investigation, the crucial area of Adventism's handling of the gospel has been the relation of justification and sanctification. The peculiar Adventist understanding of righteousness by faith has influenced the movement's approach to that relation.

Adventist theology from 1844 to 1950 has been confused over the relation of justification and sanctification. The fundamental characteristic of this confusion is the subordination of justification to sanctification. This has sometimes found expression in the definition of justification as including sanctificational renewal. The subordination also has a chronological aspect in that it views justification by imputation of the extrinsic(outside) righteousness of Christ in terms of the past only. Justification has had the status of mere, while sanctification by inner renewal has been seen as the way of acceptance in the judgment. Hand in hand with this subordination has gone the un-Reformational notion of here-and-now perfectionism. Hence, righteousness by faith has meant both justification and sanctification, but mainly sanctification. If there is any difference between the two periods examined thus far, it is that there has been a progression from overt Pelagianism in the earlier period(1844-1888) to a more refined semi-Pelagianism in the latter period(1888-1950).

The semi-Pelagianism of this largely Tridentine approach has perpetrated a serious infringement of the freedom of God in Adventist theology. There can be little doubt that this has been mainly caused by the failure of the movement to give the theological priority to Christ, as did the Reformers. The Christological determination of grace alone would have gone a long way in maintaining the sovereign divine assumption and the believer's sinfulness. In viewing the evidence, there is not a shadow of doubt that the incarnation is minimized in the Adventist theology of the 1844-1950 period. It is either largely forgotten(1844-1888) or transferred to a new place(1888-1950) —namely the believer.

Adventism's theology of the gospel between 1844 and 1950 has failed to echo the Reformation understanding of the grace of God as God Himself in Christ. http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/shaking/4.html

See also:http://www.ondoctrine.com/10pelagi.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianismhttp://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism

Protestants do not believe that OS is ever removed from the sinner until Glorification.  They teach that the effects of OS, which is a fallen nature transmitted from Adam, start from birth and continue through out life.  Which is why they also refute last day perfectionism.  There is no such thing in Protestant theology or Historic Adventism.  Listen to the Protestants on this point:

But since man, by the seduction of Satan through the Fall, has lost his concreated hereditary righteousness according to God's judgment and sentence, as a punishment, human nature, as has been said above, is so perverted and corrupted by this deprivation or deficiency, want, and injury, which has been caused by Satan, that at present the nature is transmitted, together with this defect and corruption [propagated in a hereditary way], to all men, who are conceived and born in a natural way from father and mother. 28] For since the Fall human nature is not at first created pure and good, and only afterward corrupted by original sin, but in the first moment of our conception the seed from which man is formed is sinful and corrupt. Moreover, original sin is not something by itself, existing independently in, or apart from, the nature of the corrupt man, as it neither is the real essence, body, or soul of the corrupt man, or the man himself. 29] Nor can and should original sin and the nature of man corrupted thereby be so distinguished as though the nature were pure, good, holy, and uncorrupted before God, while original sin alone which dwells therein were evil.http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/originalsin.html

The Mormons also reject OS and so too the Muslims.  Do the SDA's really want to embrace these confused paradigms?http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/original_sin.html

 Tom, you are in great error with this teaching. I know of no other way to put it.