I'm not a postlapsarian, and agree with everything Prescott said in that sermon.



I can think of a fifth one.

Christ took a human nature which, like ours, and unlike Adam's, was subject to fatigue and other physical ailments. He also needed, differently from Adam, a supernatural enmity against Satan implanted in His human nature and needed divine help to overcome temptation and keep His will consacrated to God. However, unlike our natures, this nature did not have the same inclinations ours have. However, it was possible for Him to sin.

Amen! True assurance - not Satan's counterfeits - comes only when both "victory" and "in Jesus" are accepted.

I'll preface my comments by saying I think it's a big mistake to try to understand Ellen White's meaning in speaking of Christ's human nature without taking into account her dealings with her contemporaries, who were postlapsarians.



Regarding corrupt nature, she wrote:



This involves the will, so, as she view "corrupt nature" as involving the will, and our receiving a sinful nature does not involve the will, she didn't say Christ took a corrupt nature, but a sinful nature nature.

In the quote I cited, she did say, by inference, that Christ took a nature with corrupt principles or tendencies to evil. She also said that Christ took our "sinful" or "offensive" nature, as well as our nature "degraded and defiled by sin." She calls it "our sinful nature." Clearly the meaning of "our sinful nature" is "the sinful nature which we have."



It's not the same idea. Original sin involves the idea that through heredity we receive tendencies to sin, which tendencies, of themselves, constitute a taint of sin, making us guilty of sin. The corporate idea is that we (the entire human race) are condemned in Adam and justified (the entire human race) in Christ. For example:



Also





The same reaction Butler had! Once again, it seems to me you are choosing the wrong side of the controversy. You side with Butler against Waggoner and Donnell against Haskell.



This is the same argument Butler made, which Waggoner addressed.



You seem to have the same basic mindset as Butler. This is also an argument Butler used, which Waggoner dealt with, his argument being that Paul's idea in Gal. 4:21 is the same as expressed by Christ in saying "All they that hate Me love death."

That "under the law" in Gal. 4:4-5 does not mean "subject to the law" is clear from the context, as Waggoner explains.



It's a similar thought to Ps. 51:5. You'd agree with this, wouldn't you?



Oh, then you meant it sarcastically, like "What do you mean, sexually attractive"? When you ask, "What do you mean *by* 'sexually attractive'," that doesn't indicate sarcasm, but that you wish to know what is meant by the term "sexually attractive."

Being sexually attracted to someone is not "behavior." Behavior is something you do. For example, smelling a pleasant odor and being attracted to it, like coffee, is also not "behavior."

Rosangela, what do you mean with "He needed a supernatural enmity against Satan implanted in His human nature"?

Do you mean, because He was to be confronted with all imaginary attacks(temptations) from Satan, that he must of been equipped with a supernatural enmity against Satan?

I understand that Jesus wasn't allowed to use his divine power to meet Satan's attack and He had to rely 100% on the Father, but I wonder, didn't Jesus character meaning, His mind not changed during the incarnation. Therefore, Jesus was naturally enmity against Satan, because that's who Jesus was. Also, this would apply to rebellion, Jesus's mind was never ever rebellious to himself? I would like to understand this.

This would only be possible by giving a meaning to Prescott's words which he did not intend.

Regarding the following:



I recall your disagreeing with this in the past, especially the Melchizedek argument.

You're saying that Christ, unlike Adam, needed a supernatural enmity against Satan implanted in His human nature?

I agree with what Rosangela said, that Christ needed a supernatural enmity against Satan implanted in His human nature, the reason being that the human nature which Christ assumed is not naturally at enmity with Satan. However, you mentioned Christ's mind, which I think may be a cause of confusion. Christ's mind was not assumed, but was His own, so is not at issue here. Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. So Christ's nature was sinless; it was the assumed human nature which was sinful.

It occurs to me that Rosangela said she could think of a fifth one, but didn't actually say this fifth option is one she agreed with (although this would be a natural inference).

No, not Jesus. Jesus' assumed human nature had sinful tendencies; that nature was attracted to sin.



Not Jesus. Jesus' assumed human nature. This isn't something Andreasen said, is it? (that "Jesus had sinful tendencies like us.")



This should be "Jesus' assumed human nature had no sinful tendencies"



I didn't follow your point on #3.

Along the lines of the example. By loving and treating people the way Jesus did.



By beholding we become changed. Our mind changes. We receive the mind of Christ, meaning that we think about things (especially God) as Christ did.

Victory over sin is not achieve by trying to get victory over this or that particular sin, crossing that off, and going to the next one. That sounds more like bondage than victory. Victory comes as our whole way of thinking changes, so that our paradigm, our frame of reference, our outlook on things, is like Christ's was.