Jones not a postlapsarian? Because he made a very critical distinction between Jesus and post-fall Adam? You're the first person I've come across to suggest that Jones was not a postlapsarian. I think you may be unique in this!

All postlapsarians make critical distinctions between Jesus and post-fall Adam. For example, Adam was human. Jesus was divine. Also Adam committed sin. Jesus never sinned.



Is this what you had in mind? If so, I can't think of any postlapsarian who wouldn't agree with this. If you had something else in mind, please quote it.

To answer your question, a postlapsarian is one who believes that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. When Adam sinned, his nature changed, and that nature was passed by heredity to his descendants. Christ took this nature.

Prelapsarians don't believe this. They believe they Christ took only innocent infirmities of Adam, such as becoming hungry or tired.

A key point of difference has to do with whether Christ could be tempted from within or not. Because of Adam's fallen nature, we all have temptations that originate from within ourselves, tendencies passed onto us from our parents. These may or may not be cultivated, meaning that we may be tempted from within to do things even though we have never consented to do them.

Prelapsarians do not believe that Christ was tempted from within.

Postlapsarians empahsize that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, meaning that Christ had the same temptations of the flesh that we have (which do not imply actual participation in sin).

Prelapsarians dispute this, saying that Christ's temptations were greater than ours (for example, keeping His divinity under control), and that tempted in all points like us means tempted in similar categories of sin.

Here's how Waggoner put it:



The underlined portion is a typical postlapsarian emphasis.

Prelapsarians often say that if Christ had take our sinful nature, He would have needed a Savior Himself.

Prelapsarians often perceive that we incur guilt because of our sinful nature (which is a similar point to the previous sentence).

Prelapsarians often miscontrue what postlapsarians say, thinking the former are implying or saying that Jesus Christ was exactly like we are.

Just a quick clarification. This "nature" you speak of, does this exclude the mind?

The word "nature", as it applies to humans, encompasses many aspects -

1. Power of choice (governs all other aspects)
2. Faculties of the mind (intellect, reason, conscience, etc)
3. Faculties of the body (appetites and passions)
4. Sinful flesh (inherited traits and tendencies)
5. Character (cultivated traits and tendencies)

Jesus inherited the first four aspects of human nature in the same way we do. The difference between us and Jesus is that He never cultivated sinful traits of character. Another huge difference is we are born with our will under the control of Satan and sinful flesh, whereas, Jesus was born with His will under the control of God and the divine nature. He set aside His divine nature and partook of God's divine nature in same way and for the same reasons born again believers (who are abiding in Jesus) do.

Arnold, do you agree with my last post?

I do not completely agree with it. More next time.

For now, I'll just say this: The SOP breaks down human nature into only three components - physical, intellectual, moral.

A. T. Jones commented:



I think this is from the 1895 GCB. Does this answer your question?

If I may ask you a question in return, when I asserted that SDA's believed that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall, you said all except Ellen White. These aren't the exact words, but this is the thought. I want to clarify that I understand your assertion correctly, that you agree that SDA's were post-lapsarian (I'm talking about before the 1950 era) with the lone exception of Ellen White. Is this correct?

Maybe. So you're saying that "a postlapsarian is one who believes that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall," with "nature" excluding the mind.

First, who disagrees with this today? Have I written anything contrary to this? Wallace or Whidden? As far as I know of their teachings and mine, we do not disagree that Jesus took the nature, excluding the mind, of Adam after the fall.

Second, what is left of human nature when you exclude the mind?


There are three components to human nature: physical, mental, moral.

Earlier, you said, "Our flesh is not a matter of morality." Now we have established that the mind is also not included in what you're talking about. That leaves only the physical nature.

So you're teaching that Christ was physically like fallen Adam. Who disputes that today? Not me or Wallace or Whidden, as far as I know.


Here's the actual exchange:

I did not mean my comment to be taken with mathematical, or even scholarly precision. There were actually others who made assertions that boil down to Jesus not being quite like Adam after the fall - post lapse.

Here's one from EGW: The truth will have but little influence over him, for there is in human nature, when separated from the Source of truth, a continual opposition to God's will and ways. The physical, mental, and moral being are all under the control of rash impulses. The affections are depraved, and every faculty intrusted to man for wise improvement is demoralized. {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 4}

This describes Adam's post-fall nature quite well, don't you think? Adam was opposed to God's will and ways (ran away from God), under the control of rash impulses (decided to die for Eve, then threw her under the bus), depraved affections, every faculty demoralized. But I don't think it describes Jesus.

Here's one from Jones: He was made ... not in the likeness of sinful mind.

But Adam, after the fall, had a sinful mind, like the rest of us.

Here's one from Waggoner: "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The flesh never becomes converted. It is enmity against God; and that enmity consists in opposition to his law.

Adam, after the fall, had a carnal mind, like the rest of us. But Jesus was never enmity against God.

Something to note with this statement. Waggoner equated "flesh" with "carnal mind." Furthermore, the flesh is enmity against God, opposed to His law. It is clear that for Waggoner, in this context, flesh had something to do with morality, God's law fundamentally being a moral code.

It should also not escape us that Waggoner was commenting on Romans 8 when he equated the carnal mind with the flesh. If we back up a few verses, we find that Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh." Is it not possible that Paul was also equating the flesh with the carnal mind, therefore necessitating the modifier "likeness" rather than simply saying Jesus came in sinful flesh, because that would have meant that He was enmity to God and was not subject to the law of God, nor can be. That would be ridiculous to say about Jesus.

Anyway, with our settled definition that postlapsarians exclude the mind and the morals when they say "nature," we can say, "Jesus had the nature of Adam after the fall" and be in complete agreement. We just had to settle the scope of "nature."

However, we must acknowledge that such postlapsarians do not strictly hold to the usage of "nature" in the SOP, which sometimes includes moral characteristics. Therefore, should someone come along and say, "Jesus did not have Adam's nature after the fall," the generous thing to do is not to assume that he is wrong, since he could be using "nature" in a way that the SOP uses it. Agreed?

Pre-lapsarians disagree with this.



Yes.



Have you read what A. T. Jones has written on the subject? For example, in the 1895 GCB? Do you agree with what he wrote?

I'm sorry to answer your question with questions, something I rarely do; I just think this would be an easier to way to proceed in this particular case. If you agree with what A. T. Jones wrote, then we're in agreement. If you disagree with something, we can discuss that.

Here's something short to look at:



Do you agree with this?



It sounds like there may be some confusion here. Jesus not being just like us is not the post-lapsarian idea. Jesus was not just like us, which any post-lapsarian will affirm.



This is a good question, which gets to the heart of the matter, especially this part:



The post-lapsarian position is that this applies to Christ, which is to say that His assumed sinful human nature, separated from the Source of truth, was in continual opposition to God's will and ways, just like the sinful nature that any other human has genetically. This is why He had to deny Himself, just like any other child of Adam. His flesh clamored for one thing, but He said "No!" just like we must. The difference between Him and us, in this regard, is that He always said "No!"



The flesh cannot act independently upon the will:



Christ had the same flesh that other human beings have, so received the same temptations. His flesh tempted Him to act contrary to the law of God, just like anybody else's flesh. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. Therefore it is amoral. The will is the governor of the mind. It is the mind, which controls the flesh, which is moral or immoral.

Waggoner's and Jones ideas were the same as Sister White's on this point.



Having a carnal mind depends upon participating in sin. Christ always said "No!" to the flesh, so He had the mind of Christ, a mind we are exhorted to receive, so that we can crucify the lusts of the flesh, just as Christ did. Although Jesus was never enmity against God, His flesh was; His was sinful flesh.



The "mind" as in the expression "sinful mind" (as Jones spoke of) refers to one's character. The same is true of the "heart." Both the mind and the heart may be corrupted by sin. Christ never sinned, so His "mind" and His "heart" were pure.

Regarding "nature," the issue is not that post-lapsarians do not strictly hold to the use of the word "nature" as used by the SOP, but simply the word "nature" means many different things, depending on the context. It's a versatile word. Ellen White used the word "nature" in a natural way (pun intended). I'm not aware of any post-lapsarians using the word differently than she did. (I'm not saying this can't or doesn't happen, just that I'm not aware of any examples of this).

Personally I prefer using the word "flesh" as this seems clearer than "nature." However, even this seems to get confused, so perhaps it is the concept itself which is difficult.

Well, they better get on the ball because they are incongruent with the SOP.


I was not aware of this. Can you provide a quote, please.


Let's look at one:
She spoke of a nature that needs transformation in order to be a Christian. Let's talk of "nature" as EGW used it in this context.

1) Did post-fall Adam have that nature that needed transformation?
2) Did Jesus have that nature that needed transformation?

I answer Yes and No. That's why I'm not postlapsarian. If you, as a postlapsarian, answer the same, you would be the first that I know of.

Much of the controversy is over whether Christ could be tempted from within. Prelapsarians deny this.

The mind is not a part of the nature which is taken by Jesus Christ, so to any extent that Christ's assumed human nature supposedly differed from ours, to that extent a prelapsarian is disagreeing that Christ took our nature (excluding His mind).

The controversy is not of Christ's mind, but His flesh.

If you agree that Christ took our nature, including its capacity to tempts us from within, the we are in agreement. If you disagree, then there's no need for a quote.



Obviously our sinful nature cannot be transformed. So this is irrelevant. This is just an example of her using the word "nature" in one of its different meanings. This is exactly why I like speaking of "flesh" when dealing with Christ's assumed human nature. It avoids this sort of ambiguity.

At any rate, this is not an example of a post-lapsarian using the word "nature" differently then EGW used it. Any post-lapsarian would agree with her use of "nature" here. Or any pre-lapsarian. This is scratching where it doesn't itch. No one disagrees that our nature, as she's using the term, needs to be transformed. It's our flesh that is not transformed. As Waggoner pointed out, it must be crucified. Just as Christ crucified it.