I respect the resignation in your voice, Elle. Which is also why I didn't respond too aggressively.

From experience you know that coming from such distinct backgrounds—being theologically influenced from opposite directions—makes it nearly impossible to meld in significant ways.

It's the nature of the religious-forum beast.

I'm sure you can relate: One minute my winged soul is whirring about with Andreasen's Christology, and the next I'm hearing Heppenstall, Ford, Whidden, or Adams rattling the cage.

OK, a little melodramatic. But I know you can empathize.

Sigh.

William

Yes, unknown sin.



Is this a joke? If not, please read the context. This isn't what John is saying.



I sort of agree with this. I think the pioneers had it right, which is why I keep referencing them. I think all prelapsarians have it wrong, as they have a theology with a foundation of original sin, which can't work (IMO of course).

I see a couple of mistakes among modern day postlapsarians, two big ones which come to mind. First of all, not being careful with language, saying thing like Jesus Christ "had a sinful nature" or and inclination to sin, or things like that. I can think of one time when Ellen White used the word "had" instead of "took," (and this was with "human" instead of "fallen"). I can't think of any times when Jones, Waggoner or Prescott did so. If we say Christ "had" a sinful nature, that can certainly give a wrong impression, and EGW cautioned us to be very careful. I've been using the expression "assumed human nature," as I think that's pretty clear.

Another error is in terms of emphasis. A lot of times the emphasis seems to be on Christ as example. That's certainly worth mentioning, but this wasn't the focus of the 1888 message, not by a long shot. In the well known DA 49 quote, for example, it says Christ took our nature and accepted our heredity to share in our temptations and sorrows (as well as be an example). One hardly ever hears about Christ's sharing in our sorrows. Yet this was the emphasis of our pioneers. For example, in the 1895 sermons, A. T. Jones spoke on this theme in great detail, far more than on Christ as example. George Fifield is another who comes to mind, who dwelt for eloquently and at great length and emphasis on the theme of Christ as a Savior who shares in our sorrows. This is a message we need to hear.



If this isn't dealing with genetic tendencies, that makes sense.



You're sort of answering one religious phrase, which doesn't really mean anything by itself, with another. Obviously literal blood gushing doesn't solve anything. What's the meaning here? How would blood purify prayers? How does it remit sin?

Salut William, I appreciate all the input/history/sources you've shared. Most was going over my head for everything is new to me. Too many new terms to grasp and I have to keep on googling the definition of these. However, most helpfull! Not only to me, but I think it might bring this looonnng discussion closer to a conclusion. I hope eh?

Quite alright, Elle. My pleasure! Don't know that I did anything intentionally, but I think I may understand what you mean.

Because you sound a tad more hopeful, I believe what might have triggered your response was the quasi-tracing of our respective beliefs to some concrete theological system, book, or leading thinker.

In other words, I've unashamedly thrown out the works of Priebe, Paulson, and Andreasen, for example, as respresentative of my faith. Older writers enabling my theology that I could have mentioned are Jones, Miller, and Were.

Knowing my muses, if you will, unquestionably gives you a crystalline paradigm, an advantage allowing you to fairly assess and critique my doctrinal beliefs. Yes?

Now, were I to see who has most influenced you, Rosangela, or Arnold, for example, the most active non-postlapsarians on this thread, it would be rather uncomplicated to determine how best to approach the apparent dissatisfaction you each seemingly have with certain aspects of pre-QOD Adventism.

Having boxes of books from the widest-range of Adventism thinkers, past and present, it wouldn't be a burdensome challenge to determine the theological tentacles each of you are attached to.

And we are each connected to a past, no matter the size of our egos and wishful independence.

I've unmistakably discerned in some a passion for arguing the loopholes and avoiding the obvious—not to mention the hanging shadows of the four aforementioned Evangelical Adventists.

So it would be quite practical (honorable?) to know in full what precise historical figures and facts the non-postlapsarians here could confess to in order to also fairly assess and critique.

Now I wholly appreciate man's natural fear of overexposure and the need for protective boundaries, and I respect these like the next bloke, but as you intimated, identifying the original sources of our inspiration just "might bring this looonnng discussion closer to a conclusion."

Indeed. There is reason for hope.

William

To start with, please forgive me for putting you on the spot. I wasn't seeking for you to tell me all your sources and it's just something that happenned. It just dawn on me that you have put yourself in a vulnerable state for the sake to answer me. So I deeply appreciate what you have done and I can see you put others before yourself. Bless you!
William, I'm hardly aware of any theology and never took pleasure in reading any of those books. So, whatever sources people quote, I hardly have any clue who those people behind the quote believe and reasonings are. And all those terminology, goes way above my head. Maybe you thought I was pulling your leg when I said that all is new to me. I'm pretty straight forward talker. I heard the basic talk about these subject, but never in this dept of discussion as we have it here.

By the sound of your writings, I'm sure you are not a mere reflector of others thoughts.

By you giving me those sources, I was able to read a summary of those men beliefs and the impact on our Church. I do see, as a Church, we are not embrasing the gospel. We have no life and no power in us. I think that's a serious problem. To show you how pathetic we have become, I only heard the gospel message 2 weeks ago after 20 years of Adventism. I knew I didn't know it and I was lacking in some understanding. So I've been praying for months and God unswered me via Pastor Liversidge. So, I am quite satisfied now. I know my Lord will lead me in all understandings now and will show in due season what I need.

Oh! they are non-potlapsarians? Ok. To me what they are saying, seems to be in harmony with scripture. However, what do I know, right? I just hopped in this discussion a month ago.

So you mentioned you were Postlapsarians through and through. So Jesus born with sinful flesh and with a brain badly connected with a bent toward sin? If you read my respond to you at the beginning, I ask you "Do you have children?" because I have a hard time to view baby Jesus not sinning with 4000 years of inherited neurons connected to bent towards evil.

? Who do you mean? Jones, Miller, and Were? Waggoner?

That could help. What I would like to see, is a bullet type of list of what they believe. And if they wish, with their sources would be just great! It's not always obvious from reading the thread especially after 73 pages of it. Man, I'm surprise I'm still hear! I don't usually have this patience. I guess I must be desperate

You know, right now, it just so happen that I'm reading a paper regarding the Trinity. That's going to be my next target. Anyway, it is quoting Jn 9:35-38 concerning the born blind man. Note what the Pharisees says.

And what were their sin? Oh before you see the Pharisees sins, check how they accused the born blind before excommunicating him:

Pretty good, eh? And now the great finally, "How can we not have the sins of the Pharisees"

That's what should be the conclusion and moral of any great discussion. Right?

Of course, Elle. I'm actually willing to divulge my sources of influence in order to reach that elusive "conclusion" you mentioned earlier. My offer to the others for openness is still, well, open!

Quite welcome.

Correct, Elle. I got lost in the moment.

Totally agree. Just not sure Evangelical Theology offers what Adventism can through the "Everlasting Gospel" (Rev. 14:6) in the context of the Three Angels' Messages with a cleansed sanctuary and soul. But we disagree here (somewhere) so let's not belabor the point. Good?

I used "non-postlapsarian" because neither Arnold nor Rosangela appear to be true prelapsarians. But now that I remember, sounds like Arnold may have some "potlapsarian" in him after all! Ha.

Oh, of course, sorry. . . have many spiritual children. But whenever thinking about my position on sinful flesh, the brain, children, inherited neurons, or being bent to evil, replay Tomcat's now wonderfully redundant five-point answers to poor Rosengela! Haha. But true. He's done marvelously well in answering for me. Sorry, don't mean to be a prudish clot in not being more articulate.

Ah, right. I meant Heppenstall, Whidden, Ford, and Adams, all leading thinkers colored with hues of Augustine's original sin. Or, as Heppenstall wrote in The Man Who Is God, "The specific condition to which Adam brought all men, is original sin."

Wholeheartedly agree! But just remember what the Adventist Review's Roy Adams said at the recent QOD Conference, "It’s important that we get our theology right. Defective theology is not a victimless enterprise."

How true.

Yes, there, finally. Whew. Not used to all this writing or replying! Smiling.

William

Since you seem to have such a nice rapport going with William, I'm happy to mostly but (the software won't let me spell this correctly) out, but couldn't help commenting again on this:



We are told how Jesus remained sinless is a mystery not disclosed to mortals. Now if Christ didn't take our sinful nature, there's no mystery at all, is there?

Also, we're supposed to overcome with the same thousands of years of neurons, aren't we? Are we to do something Christ couldn't have done?

Christ did tell us clearly that He had the mind of the Father in Him. So, yes, He did set for us an example, and we need the indwelling of the mind of Christ in us to be victorious as He was.

Right now, I'm not sure where you stand in this because of the other thread you expressed that the indwelling of the spirit was a metaphore. So forgive me if I'm saying things that you agree on.

That's the whole point of beleiving in Jesus, the "only" begotten Son of God, is to come to the realization that we can't overcome. We don't have it in us, not even remotly close to it. That's why we need "Christ in us", the indwelling spirit, to give us a new mind, to sanctified our faculties, and to arouse a new line of action in us. That's the born again experience that we need every day.

Let me paraphrase : Our brain is not changed, according to EGW, New thoughts, new motives, and new feelings are given. Actually these are all Jesus's thoughts, motives, and feelings -- His Mind. Our "faculties"(reason, will, senses, motion,appetite, sexual,...) are "aroused"(note she's saying faculties are not changed, but aroused.)

Here is where we surrender our will to Jesus' mind that is now in you. Then a new line of action takes place. This means a new neuro-pathway is formed. However, the old is still there.

As we enter the same battle, the new neuro-pathway is strenghten and it becomes easier for us to surrender our will in that area the next time. But as soon as we take over our will again, then the pathway will gradually weakened, and regress back to our old ways.

So is it us that is overcoming? No, it is 100% Jesus, and that's why salvation is given to those who believes; whoever enter into faith in Jesus.

Tom, I decided to not comment anymore on this. To me there's scriptures that seems to say that Jesus was different, however there's other text. So, maybe really, we won't be able to get to the bottom of it. I'm sure this truth will be given to the 144K. I already said what I thought, and beyond that, I'll let you guys continue the discussion. However, if you can provide us with a bullet list of what you believe with your sources, maybe that way, we can work together and be more objective to the matter.

Perhaps Tom could start with a summary of his view. He's better at making summaries than I am.