Compare EGW's description of the "human nature of Adam after the fall":
But, when you speak of Jesus having "fallen human nature," you are not speaking about that which EGW was speaking about here. In short, you say "human nature" but are really thinking about a very narrow slice of what "human nature" constitutes in its fullness. So, those like me who have read little of the various commentators, but only have a knowledge of these terms as the Bible and SOP use them, often get confused with modern postlapsarian terminology, because if you read the SOP to learn from it rather than to use it to prove a personal position, we find that EGW describes fallen human nature in ways that obviously do not apply to Jesus.


"Postlapsarian" did not exist in the days of EGW, afaik. So, it is inadvisable to be dogmatic about what the term meant to the Pioneers and whether or not EGW was one.

Have you never heard a prominent postlapsarian say that Jesus "had a tiger in His pants"?

Have you never heard any postlapsarian say that Jesus was tempted by the same sources that we are, knowing that we are tempted by the evil of our own hearts?

Have you never heard any postlapsarian that Jesus had the same selfishness that the rest of us naturally have, but the difference is that He didn't act upon it? BTW, is selfishness inherently evil, or only if you act on it?


It all depends on how she understood them. And as we have seen regarding "fallen human nature" modern postlapsarians do not always use and understand terms as EGW did. So it is possible that she agreed with them, but people today don't understand them the way she did.

I should address this before signing off.


KP, you, and I agree here.


And that boils down to, No. Again, the 3 of us agree.


It's not rhetorical. But it does not apply to you, based on your answers above.


This is where we part ways.

The thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character. I disagree that it is formed and developed only through resisting the temptations of the flesh, assuming we are both talking about fallen flesh. If that was the case, then only sinners can form and develop character. If so, God's original plan for the universe either included sin, or was very boring.

Yes, God's plan is to control the flesh through the mind, while Satan's goes the other way. But that does not necessitate fallen flesh, and definitely not depravity. IOW, neither Adam nor Jesus required a fallen nature in order to develop character.


Yes, we should understand how temptation works. But it doesn't mean that Jesus was tempted by the evil of His own heart as we are by ours. If we remember that our greatest battles are against our own internal foes and realize that Christ's internal temptations constituted no more than 1% of what He experienced (as I proved mathematically), we will see that our situation significantly differs from Christ's. While we have a natural affinity for sin, and need God to implant an enmity for sin, Jesus always had that enmity.

Because of this difference, it is not as important to dwell upon what our lower nature does, and how Jesus had the same. It is infinitely more important to see how Jesus exercised His higher nature, and learn to do the same.

OK. Last one. For real....

thanks arnold. by beholding we are changed. studying Jesus life can change and save me.

As I've pointed out, "nature" can mean many different things, depending on the context.



Prescott, Jones and Waggoner spoke a lot more in terms of "flesh" than "nature," which I think leads to less confusion.



I wasn't speaking about the term "postlapsarian" but the meaning expressed by the term. It's just easier than writing out, "the nature (or flesh) of Adam after the fall."



No, I haven't heard any of these things. Neither Jones, nor Prescott, nor Haskell, nor Fifield, nor Ellen White, nor Waggoner expressed any of these ideas. I haven't been attempting to defend what any postlapsarian may have said, but rather that Ellen White was postlapsarian, as was the SDA church as a whole until 30 years after Ellen White's death, after which point some new ideas entered into the church.



I agree with this.

Let me re-ask my question again regarding if you believe Ellen White was a postlapsarian. I'll ask it this way. Using either E. J. Waggoner's chapter on "Christ And His Righteousness" (where he speaks about Christ's taking sinful flesh) or W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh" (I think that's the name; the Avondale sermon that Ellen White endorsed) as a baseline, do you believe Ellen White was a postlapsarian, given how these men understood and expressed postlapsarian thought.

Thanks.

I don't think so, at least not on the part you're commenting on.



I didn't say it was "only" formed this way. I simply said that character is formed when one resists the temptations of the flesh. There are other temptations that one could resist, and those would also develop character.



This is true, if character could only be formed by resisting the temptations of fallen flesh.



I wasn't arguing that it does. I was simply answering your questions.



Again, I didn't address this. I agree that this is of course true.

The argument isn't that Jesus Christ required a fallen nature in order to develop character, but that Jesus Christ came with such a heredity that we have in order to share in our temptations and sorrows, as well as giving us an example of overcoming these temptations by faith.

Many times Ellen White said that Christ took our fallen nature. Here's one:



In view of these statements, I don't see how there's even any question regarding that Christ took our fallen nature. I can see there could be questions regarding what exactly this means, but as to the fact of the matter, it's explicitly statement many, many times that Christ took our fallen nature. Here's one more:





From my perspective, this is a red herring. Neither EGW, nor Waggoner, nor Jones, nor Prescott, nor Fifield, nor any other contemporary of Ellen White that I am aware of ever suggested this. Maybe there's some modern day person who said something like this. I assume you have some reason for bringing this up, as you keep mentioning it, but I don't know what it is.

For me, this is a non-issue. As A. T. Jones said, He wasn't made in the likeness of sinful mind; leave His mind out of it. "Heart" falls in the same category as "mind." The heart is not the flesh, just as the mind is not the flesh.



I remember there was some quote you had in mind her, but don't remember it. Given that man is indivisible, it's not possible to separate one part of the man from another. A temptation may be due to some external stimulus, but that doesn't imply there is no internal element to it as well. I'd be interested in seeing your proof again.



Christ took the flesh that we have which has a natural affinity for sin, but He always said "no" to the temptations of the flesh. Before being converted, we are not partakers of the divine nature, so we ourselves have an affinity for sin, which Christ did not, so I agree on this point; however, the reason Christ did not have an affinity for sin is not because He had sinless flesh, but because He said "no" to the temptations of our sinful flesh. The difference between Christ and us was not in His flesh.



I wouldn't say "infinitely" more important, but I would agree that there are more important things to dwell on. For example, I dwell on the Great Controversy theme, and the importance of understanding God's character; how Christ fully revealed God, and so forth. That doesn't mean I don't think these other topics are unimportant, but I would agree with your assertion here, although not to the degree you are expressing it.

Those don't really have to do with the postlapsarian position.

Of what use is Jesus' use of the higher human nature to us unless its mastery is over the lower, sinful human nature or flesh? We do want to know about Jesus' victory of faith, but unless that victory included conquering sin in our flesh, all his righteousness is of no use to us, his brethren.

Preserving that truth of our common factor with our Saviour is what matters - as KP is trying to, and that's the essence of RBF by the Gospel of Jesus. Thereby the truth is clear enough, not so? If not, how not

Human nature consists of five aspects – 1) the will or the ability and power to choose and decide, 2) the higher faculties or powers of the mind such as reason, intellect, and conscience 3) the cultivated traits of character, 4) the lower faculties or powers of the body such as appetites and passions, and 5) the unholy cravings and clamorings of fallen flesh. The first three aspects are higher nature whereas the last two are lower nature.

1. Higher
2. No.
3a. NA
3b. While it is true cultivating sinless traits of character is ultimately the most important aspect of human nature, this does not, however, mean reining in the unholy cravings and clamorings of fallen flesh is inconsequential. It is the greatest battle ever fought. Subduing and subjecting them to a sanctified will and mind is equally important.


Yes, in this sentence they are interchangeable.


Amen! Jesus inherited the same hardware we do. Like us, though, His human nature did not come with the necessary software. He, like we, depended on the Father for the software to run His hardware unto God’s honor and glory. In this way He, like we, cultivated sinless traits of character.


Character is cultivated not inherited. It is the result of repetitious choices made in the context of internal and external stimuli. Ellen speaks of prenatal influences in a way that leads me to believe even unborn infants begin making conscious and/or unconscious choices as they react and respond to the various stimuli affecting them while in the womb.

“All have sinned.” Which includes infants. Of course God does not count them guilty. No one is neither sinful nor sinless. Neutrality is impossible. People cannot cease sinning until after they are born again and begin abiding in Jesus. Therefore, yes, newborns are born cultivating sinful traits of character. It's what humans do until they are born again and begin abiding in Jesus. Sinning is what we do by default.


I agree with Tom. Human nature consists of the 5 aspects named above (this post), of which character development is the only aspect we have any control over. Of course in Christ we can subdue and subject fallen flesh to the control of reason and conscience. But we have no control over its desire for sinful expression. We cannot turn it off. Nor does it come with a kill switch.

Before we are born again, our will is under the controlling influence of Satan and sinful flesh. We cultivate sinful old man traits and habits of character as we react and respond to the unholy influences that affect our mind and body.

After we are born again, our will is under the controlling influence of God. As we abide in Jesus, as we partake of the divine nature, the Holy Spirit empowers us to recognize and resist sin, self, and Satan, and to cultivate sinless new man traits and habits of character.


Can we divorce the interaction between the higher and lower natures from the equation? It is, after all, the greatest battle that was ever fought in a war that does end until death or the return of Jesus. In this war the heart is transformed. It no longer wars against the soul or Spirit. Nevertheless, the flesh lives on and continually wars against us. But while abiding in Jesus we do not give in to the flesh, we do not express its sinful desires in thoughts, words, or deeds. Listen as Ellen explains it:

Jesus



me

Actually, that was David. But Jesus was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh.



By the way, this was part of what was presented at the 1888 GC meeting in Minneapolis, of which EGW said:



Regarding Luke 1:35, it is not having sinless flesh which made Christ holy.