Who says that Christ's nature, excluding the mind, is different from ours?


But temptation happens in the mind, not the flesh. So what's all the fuss about the flesh?


There's no problem with "capacity." Who taught that Jesus "could not" (as opposed to "was not") tempted from within? The only one I could think of that came close was Waggoner.

BTW, all temptation, comes through our own lusts - within.


And this is why I think most postlapsarians who spend a lot of time on this topic are wasting their time. Here, in one of the strongest statements of present truth - our need of transformation - postlapsarians consider it "difficult to understand" or ambiguous.

And what is the other meaning of "nature" that causes it to be ambiguous? It is the "nothing to do with morality" nature. If it has nothing to do with morality, then it has nothing to do with reflecting Christ's character in our own, and therefore, worthy of little attention, if any.


Really? So if I say, as I often do, that Christ's nature was not like ours, and we need a transformation of nature so that we can BECOME like Him, you wouldn't have any problem? You would say Amen? You would be the first. Never have I seen a postlapsarian agree without a long treatise on why "nature" is the wrong word to use there, and to a quote from the most comprehensive book on Christ.

Since the mind has not to do with Christ's assumed human nature, anyone who says Christ's assumed human nature is different than ours does.



Have you read A.T. Jones 1895 GCB? He treats this in detail. In brief, temptations reach the mind through the flesh. EGW speaks about this in the AH quote I cited. The "fuss" is that Christ was tempted as we are, thus He overcame the very same temptations that we are to overcome. Thus when He says, "Be of good cheer! I have overcome the world." we can do what He says, since, as a contemporary of Jones and Waggoner said, "the world which Christ overcame was in His flesh."



This is hard to follow. If Christ took our flesh, then He was tempted from within, as we are. That's the post-lapsarian position, which all SDA's held before around 1947.



I don't know anyone, post-lapsarian or pre-lapsarian, who has any trouble with the concept that we must be transformed.



It's the word "nature" which is ambiguous; not some specific meaning of the word, but which meaning is intended.



If Christ took our flesh, then He was tempted as we are, and we overcome as He overcame. What's worthy of attention is that Christ took our flesh, and overcame in that flesh, the same flesh we have. An often considered text in the 1888 message was Romans 8:3. Here is an example:





Not necessarily. Your statement is ambiguous, but if you aren't referring to Christ's assumed human nature, no, I wouldn't have a problem with this.



Maybe "Am." Or "en."



I don't personally know any post-lapsarians who would have a problem with this. Every one I know would respond along the same lines I have, which is that your statement is not very clear, but depending on what meaning of the word "nature" you had in mind, it could be fine.

And that's why, since I started significant discussions with postlapsarians about 3 years ago, that I have become more convinced not to be postlapsarian. You guys don't know DA very well, if you are not quite sure what I mean when I say, "We need a transformation of nature." That is so basic to Christianity, and how to become a Christian. Maybe that explains why postlapsarians do not spend as much time evangelizing as do their non-postlapsarian counterparts.

3 years' discussions - how much do you know of the salvific, eschatological issues behind the dispute, or is that genuinely old hat? That "transformation" is two fold: mind and character, justification and sanctification, respectively, and until that is clear this dispute in the church continues - beyond October last year (the QOD 50th anniversary meeting at the seminary, here: http://qod.andrews.edu).

You worried about lack of evangelism among your counterparts. What of the continuing, now muted confusion within the church over Christology??? How healthy is that - how settled are you??...It is good to reach out as well as reach in, but we cannot only reach out while the house is unwell.

The reason to be a post-lapsarian should be because it is true! Not because you think someone does or does not know DA very well.

Btw, it's interesting that you should mention DA, since that's the reason I became a post-lapsarian. Before becoming an SDA, I wasn't. After reading DA, I became the point of view she presented regarding Christ's human nature, that Christ took human nature after 6,000 years of sin, accepting the workings of the law of heredity, was true.

If people don't understand what you are saying, the reason might not be related to how well DA is known, but to how well you are expressing yourself.



Wouldn't it be better to skip comments like this?

I don't know if this will ever become old hat for me. To me, there are parts that remain an unfathomable mystery. Of all the ones I have discussed this with, only postlapsarians seem to ever believe they've got it all down pat, and that only idiots or Jesuits can be asking questions about it at this late date.

But let's briefly look at your two issues.

Salvific - What are the salvific implications of discussing, ad infinitum, that which has "nothing to do with morality"? If the nature/flesh which postlapsarians talk about is "neither moral nor immoral," what role does it play in our salvation? From my perspective, seeing that our problem is primarily a moral problem, discussions of amoral things are of little import.

Eschatological - What will be the condition of the 144k, those who will be alive when Jesus comes? Will they "hate sin with a perfect hatred"? Will they still have sinful desires?

Let's look at our prophet's experience:
Will the 144k achieve this complete victory, where there is no longer an inclination for it, in all sinful things?

Then the question at hand: Did Jesus experience this level of victory?


Eureka!!! You have just discovered the focus of my ministry - effecting the transformation of mind and character. Hence, discussions of that which is not mind and character are a waste of time. And those who believe that transformation is unneeded or impossible are simply wrong.

BTW, do you agree that the "mind and character" that you say need transformation was clearly referred to by EGW as "nature"? Therefore, if someone chooses to think of "nature" in this way, they are solidly standing on SOP ground.


I think the controversy over Christology has overshadowed the conflict to become Christlike. There are those who spend so much time talking about what Christ was like, that they seem to have forgotten that walking like Christ is the goal to be reached. They don't seem to realize that the most powerful argument in favor of Christianity is not telling people what Jesus was like, but showing people what Jesus was like. And the unchristlike attitudes of those who are "correct" toward their "erring" brethren is indicative of the fact that by beholding we are changed.

Review Steps to Christ. How much of that book is "postlapsarian ammo," telling us how Christ's flesh is like ours, how He had the same tendencies we do, how His passions were like ours, etc? Not much. Instead, it talks about how Jesus was not like us, so we have to be changed into His image. That's the fundamental step to becoming like Christ - know that you are not.


The church is pretty unhealthy, from what I see. There's a big group that preaches a "gospel" that offers "peace" but no freedom from the bondage of sin. Then there's a group that knows about being redeemed from sin, yet spends its energies preaching about things which have "nothing to do with morality," leaving those in bondage to sin still in bondage to sin. We need to enlarge that small group who knows about freedom from sin, and is willing to preach about it. I am fully settled that I want to be in that third group.


Right. It's unfortunate that so few are qualified to reach out.

But if you really want to reach in and fix what's wrong, do you say, "You are like Jesus" or "You are not like Jesus"?

Well, I have been called a "postlapsarian plus" before. However, if there are postlapsarians who balk at the phrase "we need a transformation of nature," I don't want to be that kind of postlapsarian.

Can't even get a decent Amen.... Those who really know our true condition and the heights Christ has called us to don't even have to think twice about it.


"We need a transformation of nature." That is almost a direct quote. If you're confused by me, you'd also be confused by EGW, especially since she can't clarify herself anymore.

Maybe the problem is that postlapsarians simply find it hard to be generous to one who is a proclaimed non-postlapsarian. So much so that I can quote from the SOP and they still have difficulty agreeing. It's a shame, and really not reflective of the Jesus they claim to be like.

I don't know any postlapsarians that disagree with the concept. It's simply the clarity of expression of the concept that's in question. If you simply say, "We need transformation" you can get a hearty "Amen!" without having to clarify what you mean. If you say "we need a transformation of nature" in the context of a discussion of Christology, you'll like get a clarification question: "What do you mean by 'nature'? Do you mean 'sinful nature'? If so, that's not transformed." etc.



No, I don't think it's EGW that's the issue. It's your use of her. This quote is in a context. If you read enough of the quote to get the context, there won't be confusion. If you take a snippet, and introduce it into a discussion about Christology, that's likely to be confusing.

Don't just use me as a yardstick though. If you try to communicate something to a number of people, and they have trouble understanding you, it's not likely to be a problem that they have with Ellen White. It's more likely to be a problem you are having in communicating your ideas.

If I were the only one having trouble understanding you, then the problem would likely be on my side.



I think you may be misdiagnosing the problem here. If this is a problem that "postlapsarians" have, then it seems like you may be communicating something differently than Ellen White, because postlapsarians really, really like Ellen White.

Also the postlapsarians I have know personally I would characterize as being very generous to non-postlapsarians, although I have known of postlapsarians who are not.

Simply wrong? Real issue is: why a need, actually, and what transformation? Sinful nature is the need for change, and Christ's adaptation of our sinful nature with his righteous mind for the production of righteous character is the change gifted us by justification by faith. My point is that our need for change is met by the Saviour who fashioned a solution adaptable to sinful humans. This adaptability is no nonsense: any dilution of the possible experience of the 144k for us is due to Christ having an alternative type of humanity to us - perfection of character, even with God's grace, is out of the question, as you must have heard by now follows from the official belief that Jesus' humanity is "sinful, but without sin".

Likely only in Adventism as 'monotonous' on Christ's humanity as in her day - it doesn't sit so unambiguously anymore. How do you get round the inference that our sinful nature is only changeable in certain aspects, the mind and character but not the flesh? - what is the context of her statement; is this detail clarified?

Conflict??? You mean Christian struggle/goal, teaching? I would say...: this Christological point has veritably cancelled that teaching and obliterated any general awareness of that goal. There is confusion about becoming Christlike because we are taught it is impossible, so simply stating it as a belief of practical Godliness will produce a discussion unless you're very lucky merely to be confronted by a local revival.

The Australian clash between Ford and the Concerned Brethern, and Brinsmead, over no victory or victory indeed over sin by faith, boiled down to Christ taking sinless humanity or sinful humanity, respectively. Brinsmead wasn't totally accurate throughout, but his basic starting point was correct. Closer to your wording, I'd allow also that this Christological difference clouded certainty on the Gospel's practical Christlikeness for us.

Bad attitude is clearly no way to solve the dispute on details! Equally Steps to Christ is fully about the appeal of his righteous character & compassion for us; since the clash on Christology dates 'officially' from 1949 (see "Touched With Our Feelings), there is a confusion about precisely what Christ wants to do with us, in us, with his character, and why...The rest of what you say is roughly agreeable (that "nothing to do with morality" I didn't really spot in the first place); Your last line, here

My response is neither of those, rather: "Jesus became like us! - including having to overcome the pull of sinful flesh." Thus we can reach for him, for true Christlikeness, once he is in us. I don't go for the detail of any description of Christlikeness, for Godliness is the ideal of God for his children - need one say anymore. Tit 2:11-15 says it, too...

I've heard it, more times than I care to recount. However, it is based on faulty logic, whether promoted by antimonians or disparaged by postlapsarians. And the constant wrangling between the two groups shows that they both do not realize what the problem is, and where the solution lies.

The problem: We are selfish by nature.
The solution: We must partake of the divine nature.

When the First Adam fell, selfishness took the place of love. When the Second Adam came, He showed us what it looks like when love is in its rightful place in our hearts. That, in a nutshell, is the Gospel of redemption from that which enslaves us. Anything outside of that is not worth spending much time on.