This brought to my mind the following:



Regarding statements by other postlapsarians besides EGW, Jones or Waggoner, here's a couple:

i meant the original pioneers of about the first 20-30 years.

It was spoken of very little then. I believe J. H. Waggoner may have written some regarding it. Ellen White has a few statements.

i was having a hard time finding references to the early pioneers understanding of the human nature of Christ agreeing with jones, which is why i asked. that would make it definitely not a historic position, but more of a jones position which some others believed true. which i believe prompted ellen whites statements and warnings regarding Christs human nature.

It was correspondence on the LGT list. I have it somewhere, but the LGT list rules prevent me from sending you his posts. But you can join at http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lgtlist and check out the archives yourself.

Anyway, it wasn't a quick and easy discussion, which is a rarity on this topic. We beat the bush's immediate vicinity quite thoroughly before he realized that he wanted no part in the degree of detail I was looking at.

As a result, I don't take his writings as definitive in any way except that it is definitely his opinion based on whatever pieces of evidence he chose to look at in his research. So when he says things like, "Inspiration never teaches...." I give it as much weight as his attention to detail warrants.


This applies to 3SM 129.4? That would mean that in the first half of her sentence, she was talking about Christ living the law in His non-hereditary aspects, then switches in mid-sentence to us living the law in our hereditary aspects?

Re: character - Does the newborn son of an unregenerate sinner have a perfect moral character, imperfect moral character, or no moral character, keeping in mind that the thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character?

i would come to the conclusion that they were the same left to myself.

Arnold, It's difficult to believe that he would say if you looked at things in too much detail you would become confused. Perhaps you understood his intent, which I know you've done with me. Citing the part of the post where he says what you claimed seems like it would be OK. If you think not, you could PM it to me.



If someone claims "Inspiration never teaches," the way to disprove this is by citing a counter example.

Regarding character/nature, I believe it's similar to the one which goes something like "Just what He was in human nature, you may be by faith in Him."

Regarding character, character is developed, so a newborn would have very little, if any, character.

That EGW was a post-lapsarian is easily seen in that all SDA's of her time were post-lapsarians, she endorsed post-lapsarian sermons and teachers, worked to resolve controversies (e.g. the Holy Flesh teaching) by post-lapsarian arguments, and was understood by her contemporaries as being post-lapsarian.

I don't think they spoke of it, so you'd have difficulty finding statements that agreed with anyone.



The only expressed position of the church for almost 100 years was the post-lapsarian position. Ellen White had some statements regarding it. As I mentioned, I believed J. H. Waggoner may have written some things. Maybe some others as well. I know there weren't very many statements until Jones and Waggoner started talking about it in the late 1880's. Then Ellen White wrote many more statements. Also W. W. Prescott, George Fifield, and Stephen Haskel, to name three that come quickly to mind. E. J. Hibbard is another one. J. E. Evans and J. H. Durland are a couple of others.



No, these warning were not in response to Jones' teachings, which is easy to ascertain. Ellen White preached side by said with Jones and Waggoner in 1890 and wrote the following:



So she was definitely on board with what Jones and Waggoner taught. She also endorsed a specific sermon of W. W. Prescott's which was called "The Word Made Flesh," which expressed the same ideas, in pretty much the same language, that Jones presented.

The warnings Ellen White wrote were in response to a letter a little known W.L.H. Baker who was working in the Tasmanian mission field. Since no one knows what Baker was teaching, it's difficult to interpret Ellen White's private letter. This was written either in the end of 1895 or the beginning of 1896, which was the same time period she endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon, so if Jones' idea was in error (in which case Prescott's also was), she would surely have let him know, as opposed to endorsing his sermon (calling it truth "separated from error").

but this is the very point i am making. when i read this i read that Jesus became man, took on human nature. when you read it, i believe you are saying you see it as saying "fallen" human nature. i see nowhere where "fallen" is even implied, much less mentioned and sense i have read it in its context before, i understood her saying that Jesus became man, not just appearing to become man.

She was preaching with Jones and Waggoner. The "same nature as man" is in reference to what Jones and Waggoner preached. Those who heard the message responded, "If Christ had taken our fallen nature, He would have fallen under the same temptations we fall under." Many have this same idea today.

That "Christ could not have the same nature of man" does not mean simply "human nature" is easily seen not to be a viable possibility. No one would make the argument "Christ could not have had human nature (i.e. simply human nature, like unfallen Adam, as opposed to fallen human nature), because if He did, He would have fallen under the same temptations we do."

So to understand "human nature" as anything other than "fallen human nature" not only ignores the historical reality of the statement (Jones and Waggoner's preaching regarding Christ's taking human nature) but would force those to whom Ellen White was responding to make an argument no one would make.