A bent towards evil means an inclination towards evil, like a sinful nature. "Want" involves the will, so this isn't the same thing. The idea of original sin is that sin can exist apart from the will.

Nice one, Teresa! Have you heard Elder Paulson preach? Bellowed, without a doubt. In the best of ways, of course.

William

Hello, Elle. Others before me, some even on this forum, have written far more eloquently than I ever could on what is the Gospel.

Suffice to say, the (uninspired) book nearest to what I support is Dennis Priebe's Face to Face with the Real Gospel. Flaws and all.

I know. Don't scream. Stop, please. Just being honest. Now, now my sincerest apologizes for crushing whatever hope you had that I might be a bit normal. (Truly laughing out loud!)

William

I'm currently too lazy to distinguish between William's comments and the anonymous commenter's. I trust you guys can figure out which is which.


That is very true. Unfortunately, the issue it addresses is not the issue of our thread. That's why I pointed out that it doesn't address the points under discussion here.

But in terms of what it does address, I see no problem with it - sin is bad; we should stop.


It looks like I was unclear with what I said, but I was referring to a discussion I had with David long ago. Though not directly related to the article, it was about the difference between Christ's nature and ours.


Now we're getting to the interesting part.

If this is correct, then Christ's "channels of humanity" was different from every other human's, including post-Fall Adam and the 144k, since all have sinned. That is a difference, not in His divinity (which postlapsarians agree with), but in His humanity. IOW, Christ's HUMANITY was not identical to our humanity. Moreover, it is a difference in a MORAL aspect of humanity, an aspect that requires Christ's righteousness for covering.

Do our resident postlapsarians agree with this position?


We are given 2 options by our anonymous friend: the fallen nature or the carnal, sinful nature. I'm pretty sure he believes that "corrupt channels" means the "carnal, sinful nature."

Did Adam, after his fall, have this carnal, sinful nature? Yes he did. So from that moment of transgression, Christ's humanity was unlike post-Fall Adam's humanity in this regard. And, I should add, in this aspect, Christ's humanity was unlike the humanity of every person who ever intelligently listened to a sermon or read an article on Christology, since they all have sinned.

At what point in Adam's life did he NOT have a carnal, sinful nature? Only BEFORE the Fall. Therefore, on this point, a point that impacts our purity (or lack thereof), a point that NECESSITATES an external righteousness in order to be acceptable to God, a point that determines whether or not we need a Saviour, Jesus was like pre-Fall Adam. Hence, in order for Jesus to be our Saviour, He had to be like pre-Fall Adam on this aspect of His HUMAN nature - He needed to lack a "carnal, sinful nature."

Let's move on to the postlapsarian claim that Jesus was born like the rest of us are born. Assuming we agree on the analysis above regarding Christ's likeness to pre-Fall Adam, at least on that one point of humanity, let's consider "regular" babies (not those with a virgin mother). Are they born with a human nature EXACTLY like Adam after the Fall?

It would seem that the postlapsarian answer must be that regular babies are NOT born with human natures exactly like post-Fall Adam's, since they lack the "carnal, sinful nature" that they have yet to develop "by choosing sin over righteousness." In fact, I believe most postlapsarians would have to say that all have this hybrid human nature - having both pre- and post-Fall qualities - until the so-called age of accountability; only after he develops a carnal nature "by choosing sin over righteousness" would a person have Adam's post-Fall humanity. (Of course, Jesus is exempted because unlike everyone else in the history of mankind, He did not have a "carnal, sinful nature.")

If all this is correct, I would have to say that my position on this aspect of Christ's nature is the same as our anonymous friend's. Where we would probably differ is that I believe we are born with carnal natures - "regular" babies are born fully post-Fall.


So, Jesus had no corrupted channels. We agree there.

But the quote says that "God's people" (true believers) have corrupt channels. Furthermore, such corrupt channels necessitate an external righteousness to be imputed to them.

So, where does that leave the 144k? Do they have corrupt channels, or is it possible to eradicate the corrupt channels? If they have corrupt channels, that means they need an imputed righteousness all the way until they are glorified, right? That kind of makes a mess of the "living without a Mediator" idea that most postlapsarians have.

If the corrupt channels can be eradicated, is this experience limited to the 144k or did others such as Enoch experience this as well? Is there a qualitative difference in the righteousness of Enoch and the last generation?

Maybe Enoch also had the privilege of eradicating his corrupt channels. But if that's the case, why are "God's people" in the EGW quote still holding onto their corrupt channels?

Looking at another angle, why do the corrupt channels require Christ's cleansing blood? Is it sinful? Is it culpable? Does it require volition? Is this eradicated by Christ's imparted righteousness?


You can tell him where to find us. Anyway, if he's close enough to David to answer comments regarding the article, he's probably on the LGT list as well and has already seen some of my thoughts on the topic, since that's where I discussed it with David.

Regardless, it looks like we have some gummy stuff to chew on.

We agree again.

I trust we also agree that post-Fall Adam was inclined to sin and that he had a "bent to evil." Right?

BTW, I've been told by a prominent postlapsarian that Jesus had a bent to evil like the rest of us.

BTW2, isn't a bent to evil part of our inheritance through the law of heredity? Or is it something that must be developed later on?

No. We are equating "bent to evil" with "tendency to sin." Do you agree with that equation?

True that!

Do you agree with Priebe, though he was forced to soften his stance in the book, that Jesus came in the human nature of the converted man?

That would include "corrupt channels" wouldn't it?

True believers have "corrupt channels of humanity." You say "corrupt channels of humanity" is sin. So true believers have sin. Yes?


If anyone is born of God, he cannot sin. John says so.


Good question. No quickie answer from me.


Let's hope he pops in.


Well, the prelapsarian position is at least as messed up as the postlapsarian one. So its weakness is not news to me.


"Our natures must be transformed" is a different view from the postlapsarian Christological emphasis.


Perhaps on the first sentence, definitely on the second.


Again, it's not the sinful flesh that's the problem. He taught that the desire for sin is eradicated. Read the quote again if this sounds strange.


I think it is. Soteriology vs Christology.


Soteriology vs Christology. Is it not possible to have both?


Thanks.


Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

True believers' prayers need purification, and Christ's blood is the only thing pure enough to cleanse it.

What about the ignorant?

Thanks for the book reference William. I had a hunch that you weren't going to answer me. That's ok.

Also, it's quite evident that you are not "normal" Actually, it's really a compliment.