Any takers?

I would say character is a function of the mind (higher nature).



We are to have the mind of Christ. As A. T. Jones said, He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not the likeness of sinful mind. Jesus' flesh was like that of the unregenerate sinner (or regenerate sinner, for that matter), but His mind was "the mind of Christ." Our minds are to be like His, by partaking of the divine nature by faith.



I guess this is rhetorical?



Righteousness is by faith. Character is formed when one resists the temptations of the flesh by faith. A. T. Jones spoke of how Satan tries to control the mind through the flesh, whereas Christ endeavors to control the flesh through the mind.

While the character is not included in the flesh, it is impacted by the flesh, so this is why there is spiritual value in understanding how temptation works and how it is overcome.

One question for you in return. Do you agree that Ellen White's contemporaries perceived her views as postlapsarian?

I was explaining what I thought the quote meant, not the individual words. I already dealt with the individual words in my original comment to the quote, which was that she was using the words differently in that particular quote.

As I've often pointed out, the word "nature" can mean many different things. The context must be considered.



Ok, a couple of questions for you. First of all, do you disagree that character is developed? Second, do you think that EGW was a postlapsarian? If not, why not? (I should have asked this a long time ago!)

speaking for myself, i would have to read each and every writer that quoted from her regarding Christs nature, otherwise, i could not say one way or the other. i could do that, but im not sure that would be a constructive use of time given all that i should be studying and learning.

on the other hand, many have used ellen whites writings to justify their views believing that was what she said, including kellogg and his justification of pantheism.

so, it would seem we could end up reading into her writings what we want to. i would rather just read them and let the Lord convict me as He sees fit.

I think there are only two. A. T. Jones and S. N. Haskell. I've already quoted one. The other I think you've already read, since you seem familiar with A. T. Jones 1895 sermons.



I think you can say, because you've already read the evidence you were interested in.



I think you've already done so.



I'm not following you here. What I asked was if Ellen White's contemporaries viewed her to be a postlapsarian. This would be analogous to her contemporaries viewing her as a pantheist.



Sure this is possible, but this isn't what I asked. What I asked is if Ellen White's contemporaries viewed her to be a postlapsarian.

If her contemporaries and readers viewed her to be a postlapsarian, and she knew this (which she no doubt did), then it would behoove her to set the record straight, if she understood she was being perceived erroneously. She did this sort of thing all the time. For example, in regards to the pantheism that you mentioned, she set the record straight. She regularly did this.



Ellen White's writings suggest that we use common sense, sound arguments, and that we weigh evidence. The evidence is that her contemporaries viewed her to be postlapsarian, and that she was are of that fact.

The evidence is overwhelming that she was postlapsarian. She preached side by side with postlapsarians, defended their positions, endorsed specifically the sermons of postlapsarians, and used their language, saying, for example, that Christ took our sinful nature, and the nature of Adam the transgressor.

ill have to check but i thought you said there were more. i only have the little bit you posted from haskell. i havent been able to find the whole article, then do the research to see if ellen white supported his use of her writings or not. many used her quotes in support of their positions. ive read her comments about that. again, as i said before i would have research jones 95 sermons to see if he quoted from her regarding Christs human nature, and etc.



huh?! i will check tomorrow, but i could swear you named several "contempories" of ellen white that saw her as postlapsarian.



huh?! what do you base this on? this is getting real close to breaking that 9th commandment sdas appear to absolutely hate.


kellogg used ellen white quotes in his living temple believing they supported his pantheism. people on both sides of the daily use her quotes, ad nauseum.



ill let this one slide.




are you saying you could read her readers minds, back then and now? the contemporaries you mention are after the original pioneers and i dont know if it was "universal". and as ive said we all read her differently. there is no sense, nor use, trying to hammer me into believing what you believe. my parents couldnt do it and no one else has succeeded in my 58 years. get a clue already. i will think, and learn, and study and fall for, and by, meself.


and come to your conclusions.


so you say.

No, I didn't. I only mentioned Haskell's quoting here in the Review and Herald.



Haskell was working with Ellen White in reference to the Holy Flesh movement. He went to see what was going on, and reported back to her. He said:



A week later he wrote what I quoted earlier, where he read from the Desire of Ages and explained what that meant. He was working in concert with Ellen White. He wasn't making claims about her writings that she wasn't aware of, nor was he working on his own.

There were a number of people who worked with her on this issue. Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review, which later became the basis for his article in "A Consecrated Way." Waggoner preached on the subject at the General Conference Session which Ellen White attended.

Please note that the argument of the Holy Flesh movement was the following:

a.Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
b.We must obtain this nature to overcome as He did.

Now the prelapsarian argument against this would be to agree with a. but to deny b. However, what the SDAs did was to attack this heresy at its root, which is a. Ellen White supported this, saying, "There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric."



I said I thought there were only two who quoted from her in establishing that Christ assumed our fallen nature. That is, there are only two of which we have records of doing this. That she was postlapsarian was common knowledge. I wasn't saying only two of her colleagues knew that.



This isn't at all similar to Haskell's case. Haskell went to Indiana at Ellen White's request, and was working in concert with her. He reported to her of develops. She was in step with what Haskell was doing.



Get a clue already?

This is a public forum, Teresa. The purpose of the threads is to discuss issues, to share viewpoints, to try to persuade others based on evidence, and to learn from others as they do the same.

I don't understand your attitude here. Your first comment on this thread was to ask if the article was written to defend his beliefs, and then you said:



This thread is about an article of Paulson's. If you're not going to read the article, why are you wanting to participate in the thread? If you are going to be participate in the thread, let's do so with an open mind, in a kind way, discussing the evidence. I don't see what your entire paragraph here has anything whatsoever to do with the paragraph you responded to. Here is the paragraph I wrote:



No, I'm not reading their mind. I'm considering the evidence.

Ellen White preached side by side with Jones and Waggoner. They traveled together, spending many hours together. It's inconceivable that they didn't know each other's view on the subject of Christ's human nature, when this played such a prominent part in their preaching. Ellen White was present at the 1888 GC session in Minneapolis when Waggoner presented the studies which would later become "Christ Our Righteousness" (later renamed "Christ and His Righteousness").

Ellen White read W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh" and endorsed it as truth "separated from error." This sermon was about how Christ had our sinful flesh.

Ellen White worked with S. N. Haskell, as mentioned above, to counteract the Holy Flesh movement. S. N. Haskell quoted from "The Desire of Ages" with her knowledge, interpreting her writings as a postlapsarian.

All of this is evidence that Ellen White's contemporaries knew her thinking was postlapsarian.



Here's another of these comments. What did I do to deserve these types of comments teresaq? No, not my conclusions. My conclusions are not of interest. The truth is.



Again! No, not so I say. I'm not just saying stuff but presenting evidence.

If you disagree with the arguments or presentation of evidence, please present some counter argument or present evidence of your own, but can't we set aside these personal types of comments?

This will probably be my last post here for a while, until I finish the Steps to Christ series I'm working on.


Character is developed. But I believe that pre-Fall Adam, in his perfection, had the ability to develop character. Character development is part of God's perfect plan, and does not need sin to become possible.


In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in aspects that have nothing to do with morality? She was. But then, I don't know anyone outside Muncie who believes otherwise.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having a sinful mind? She was not. But then, neither was Jones.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having an evil nature? She was not.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having had selfishness take the place of love? She was not.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having evil in His heart? She was not.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in needing external righteousness imputed to Him? She was not.

It all depends on how fully you want to take "post-lapse" when applying it to Jesus. I have yet to see a single "postlapsarian" apply all that "post-lapse" denotes to Jesus.

Do you remember my mathematical proof that the strength of Christ's external temptations constituted at least 99% of His total? That was not true for fallen Adam.

I'm sorry for the confusion you have in regards to "postlapsarian."

"Postlapsarian" in regards to Christology refers to the idea that Christ took the human nature of Adam after the fall. Another way of expressing this is that Christ had the flesh of Adam after the fall. This is also expressed by terms such as "sinful nature" or "fallen nature". This "nature" or "flesh" refers to that which can be passed by heredity. It refers to a nature which, apart from divine help, is powerless to overcome sin.

It has nothing to do with having an "evil heart" nor "evil nature" nor "selfishness in the place of love" nor "sinful mind." I know of no one who has expressed these ideas. Certainly no well know postlapsarian of Ellen White's time expressed any of these ideas. I really don't know why you mentioned them.

Let's consider a statement from a postlapsarian:



Here's another statement:



Do you think Ellen White agreed with these statements?

these seem to be very good clarifiers to keep in mind, when considering a post-lapse position.