Regarding #111265, Let's consider the context:



This is a little later in the chapter. It's a continuation of the same argument John was discussing earlier in the chapter and through his letter.

Note vs. 17. This is John's point in vs. 9. John is saying that those who are born again obey Jesus Christ's command to love, and that one who is born again will not act in the manner described in vs. 17.

The whole context of the letter has to do with love. To even attempt an interpretation of vs. 9 without taking this into account is building on a foundation of sand.

Of not seeing God as He is? No, Jesus Christ did not have that problem. I commented on Ps. 18 in a post shortly after this one. We filter God's character on the basis of our own. To the pure, God will show Himself pure, etc. Jesus Christ was pure. There was nothing wrong with His filter. He saw God as He truly is, and revealed that to us -- and what a lovely picture!

I don't understand what you're disagreeing about. Did I say something contradictory to this? What you just said looks fine to me.

Remember my quick summary of my hamartiology? One of my definitions of sin is anything that is unloving. Therefore, "not sinning" = "not being unloving."

As an aside, I have had an ongoing battle against antinomians who say that one can be loving while willfully breaking God's commandments; it is an impossibility. But it requires reading 1Jn past chapter 1.

I repeat, if anyone is born of God, he cannot sin. Or if you prefer this equivalent wording, if anyone is born of God, he cannot be unloving. (BTW, the failure to immediately see this equivalence is one reason for my negativity regarding postlapsarian hamartiology.)

So if "seeing God wrong" is our big problem, but Jesus didn't have this problem, wouldn't that mean that He didn't have to deal with a hindrance (a messed up filter) that the rest of us have? That's a bit of an advantage, I think.

You seem to have a hang up about this. There's no question Jesus Christ had an advantage of us. He was God. That's an advantage. However, that doesn't preclude Him from taking our nature, being tempted as we are tempted, and having to overcome by faith as we must.

The fly in the ointment is the original sin idea, that simply by having sinful flesh, one becomes tainted, which would make it impossible for Christ to have come in sinful flesh.

I'm glad you think what I said looks fine. You wrote things which *appeared* to be contradictory to this, which I'm guessing you did purposely, as you seem to like to stir the pot in this way. However, if you claim ignorance (imagine an emoticon with a halo), I'll believe you.



Postlapsarian hamartiology is logic Ellen White used all the time, isn't it? As well as Haskell, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and others who worked with her. The logic is that Satan claimed it was impossible for fallen man to keep the law, which Christ proved was a lie, by taking man's fallen nature and perfectly keeping the law. It would be pretty easy to establish that Ellen White taught this.

Or did you have something else in mind? Please quote anything by Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, Fifield, or any other Adventist writing published before the last half of the last century, and we can discuss any shortcomings you see with the hamartiology you find.

Regarding a born again person not being able to sin, we see this happen all the time. Are you born again? Do you sin? That would seem to answer the question right there, unless you wish to define sin in some circular way such as "sin is that which born again people do not do," which seems to be the direction you are going.

At any rate, I don't think John's thoughts had anything to do with this. He was speaking to what real righteousness is, which is the same as "justice" in the OT (and, as I'm sure you know, "justice" and "righteousness" are the same word in the Greek -- Portuguese too), which is to take care of those in need.

James dealt with the same topic in his epistle, another one which is widely misunderstood by trying to make it apply to a topic he was not discussing. Practical righteousness is what both James and John had in mind. It's interesting that they both used the same example, that of favoritism to the rich (something which we no longer have to deal with, right? )

Are you saying that Christ's divinity is what made His filter fine? That leaves the rest of us non-divine beings out of the loop, doesn't it?

And don't you think having a messed up filter makes it more difficult for us to resist temptation and follow God? Jesus didn't have that difficulty.

BTW, Original Sin is not about having a messed up body; it's about having a messed up mind. If I understood Augustine correctly, and it was very rough reading, his idea of Original Sin rested on the concept of lost holiness. In short, he was dealing with moral depravity, not physical degeneration.

While my idea of Original Sin may not exactly match Augustine's, it shares the focus on morality. Sin is a moral issue. Original Sin is also a moral issue. The short version is: Jesus did not have moral problems, and therefore did not have from sin, original or otherwise.

My goal is to help people clearly see that Jesus was NOT morally deranged, in stark contrast to the rest of us. And that includes the moral derangement of tending to choose the bad over the good.

I think you shouldn't have any problem reaching your goal, as I doubt you'll find anyone on this forum who believes Jesus Christ was morally deranged.

The issue of interest, it seems to me, is whether or not Jesus Christ partook of a human nature which had tendencies to sin. This seems to be the point on which people disagree; postlapsarians say "yes," prelapsarians say "no."

It seems to me that prelapsarians say "no" because of original sin.

I think the whole question of Christ's morality is a red herring as far as this is concerned. Everyone believes Christ was perfectly moral.

Christ's mission was to reveal the Father. In order to do this, He would have had to have known Him better than others. John 1:18 makes this point. Jesus could reveal the Father because He was in the bosom of the Father. From the SOP we learn that Jesus Christ cleared up some misconceptions that even angels had.

If Christ's "filter" had been off, He couldn't have revealed the Father. The wrong filter would have been a matter of the mind, however, not of sinful flesh. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, not of sinful mind, as A. T. Jones pointed out over a century ago. Now had Christ sinned, that would have impacted His filter (but there would have been other more immediate problems).

Regarding this:



I agree with this statement. Christ would have tended to be perfect, since His nature was perfect. However, Christ took a human nature which was not perfect, and had imperfect tendencies.

It seems to me the issue here is analogous to the one Elle raised on another topic. If Christ was immortal, how could He have died? Because He took fallen human nature (a point Waggoner makes this clear in "The Glad Tidings.")

It appears the resident prophet spoiled all the fun!

But he's right: transgression of the law.

I also concur with the church's reactionary statement on the doctrine of man (p. 78).


Could the FB committee have been clearer? Sure.

Yet considering they convened shortly after the QOD-inspired Ford failure, and could have easily confirmed his slant on original sin, they conspicuously chose to reject it.

Instead, they opted to affirm sin as choice, and presented no hint of condemnation or guilt for being born.

SDAs believe? Right again, seer. Smiling!

William

Thoughtful list, Elle. Definitely helps in sorting things out. I may do that too, if I can find ever the time.

Considering what Arnold earlier implied with the root and fruit quote (#111208), in your view, is obedience a condition of salvation and a continual necessity? Sorry so behind.

William