Abstract
I note that my article (PSCF 51, no. 2 [June 1999]: 114-20) suffered from some editorial misunderstandings. The most serious two of these follows. The correction in the draft copy that Bob Jones Sr. recognized the "fallen nature" rather than "sinful nature" of humans (p. 115) was left out. But as Jones claimed a "baby had no sin" (original sin), he preferred to speak of humans' spiritually "dead" or "fallen nature"--but not their sinful nature. While his recognition of a human having a fallen nature accords with orthodoxy, his Charles Finney's New School type of usage of this to deny that from conception a human is tainted with original sin and so has a sinful nature and original guilt was unorthodox (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-14; 7:14-23).