Perhaps?

Ok, glad too. Here's a couple of thoughts.



The amazing thing here is that Christ felt as if He would be forever lost. Notwithstanding that, He chose to redeem us, whatever the cost to Himself. He basically said, "Teresa, all that I have, I give to you. My Father, My place in heaven; I give it all up for your benefit, so *you* can have a place in heaven."

Words can't describe the love of Christ for us. And when we remember that when we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father, words can't describe how God loves us. When we get a glimpse of that love, it stretches our heart, so we begin to learn to love like Christ.

We appreciate the self-sacrifice of God, and that appreciation has the power to motivate and change us.

Here's another one that brings out this thought:



The second thought is based on the following:



This tells us that God risked losing His Son forever in order to save us. This is one of the most amazing things I've ever read. When one things that for just one Christ would have come, we come to the inescapable conclusion that for you or I God risked His only Son. Astounding!

Wise guy!

William

so we can know, we can read and understand the words, but until it touches our heart, until we "appreciate" as you pointed out, it doesnt really mean anything.

and the appreciation needs to go deeper and deeper.......



this really got the point across, thanks!

Yes, I think this is the key. It's an appreciation of the love of God which softens our hard hearts.

Tom,

As I see it, principles and tendencies are used synonymously, and they are elements of character.

God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. There were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, no corrupt propensities or tendencies to evil. {AG 344.3}

The principles of the character of Christ are to be made the principles of the human character. {ST, May 10, 1910 par. 1}

And of course a nature (character) with corrupt principles is a corrupted nature.


In practical terms, it’s the same thing.
Abraham paid tithes = Levi paid tithes
Adam sinned = we sinned, therefore his sin = our sin, which is the same as his sin being imputed to us.


I go by what the Bible and Ellen White say, not by what they said. The main point in the discussion of Waggoner and Butler was the law in Galatians. I believe you would say that Waggoner was right and Butler was wrong, but the angel said neither was completely right. Waggoner had part of the truth and Butler part of the truth.


Again, Butler’s argument wasn’t the one I presented. Could you please respond to my argument in your own words?


What a lame argument! The whole humanity is subject to the law, not just the Jews.


Not at all. Rarely did she correct specific people doctrinally. She let her writings speak for her.


I disagree. If a Christian woman sees a very handsome man, but he is smoking, or eating with his mouth open, or having some other kind of inelegant behavior, she won’t feel attracted (or sexually attracted, to use your term) to him. In fact, sexual attraction has very little to do with the body, and a lot to do with the mind.

I have already explained this. A desire for sex at the right time and in the context of love is very different from a desire for sex completely detached from love, which is what "sexual attraction" most of the times refers to.

Given that Jesus has to have been the most loving man who ever lived...I'm sure you would not think that it were possible for him to have done anything "detached from love," right?

In this case, perhaps we need to consider some other aspects.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I know you explained it. I was wondering if the other original sin advocates agreed with your explanation.



Presumably one loves the person one is intending to marry!

From our discussion earlier in this thread:



And I had further qualified this by specifying that this person is someone you intend to marry.

I don't want to be misrepresenting your viewpoint. Your view, as I understand it, is that it is a sin, before you are married, to have a desire to have sex (not at a future time when you'd be married, but at some present time before being married) with your future marriage partner. This, to me, seems like a very odd idea. I'm curious if anyone else has it.

I see both sides of this, Tom.

On the one hand, our sexuality is built into our constitution as an integral part. Paul says to those who are married not to "defraud" each other, lest they succumb to temptation.

However, fantasizing about the marriage act prior to marriage is a rampant problem in our society, and one which has long since crossed the line of attraction to going the whole way, and calling the relationship a "test," part of "dating" to see if you have found the right one.

In my view, the ideal would be to have pure thoughts prior to marriage, with the sole focus on building the friendship and laying solid foundations for a long-term relationship. Fantasies of what you might anticipate in the area of fleshly gratification, to my viewpoint, are wrong. More than this, many people do not realize how much those thoughts and imaginings harm their future relationship. Many people, for example, become disappointed with their actual experience when it does not match up to their preconceived ideas.

Going to the principle behind all of this...some things are reserved only for marriage. To "look on a woman to lust after her" applies to any woman to whom one is not married, right? Strictly speaking, this includes a future spouse.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.