Of course, the same thing is true for "sanctification." (assuming you don't believe "sanctification" is all there is to salvation).

Here's what I'm trying to understand from what you said. You made some sort of differentiation between justification and salvation, saying "sanctification IS salvation" whereas justification was something else. So I asked if one could say, just as well, using the word "salvation" in the same sense you were, that "justification is salvation."

For example, in Zacchaeus' case, Jesus said "Salvation has come to this house." Isn't what had just happened was that Zacchaeus was justified?

In what sense is sanctification salvation, but justification isn't?

Huh? Gulp. Did you just say what I think you just said, or did I misunderstand because you were speaking too fast?

I'll hold the sniffle for your reply. (No way, she said that. What? Forget holding that sniffle. Let it pour, man! Whoa, no way.)

Yes, there. I actually thought of you yesterday and wondered why we hadn't heard from you. But thank God all is well!

(Girly sniffler.)


But, of course. The QOD part is correct, but the "C" is for Conference. And right here is the link: http://www.andrews.edu/qod/

Go to Downloads and at the bottom of the page you can find the QOD presentations in MP3 or PDF/DOC files.

Each presenter offered intriguing views into the HOC window. Note: Kirkpatrick, Standish, and Douglass are three of the most articulate postlapsarians in Adventism today.

Ironically enough, I believe Arnold mentioned somewhere that Kirkpatrick is even his pastor.

Fancy that.

GCB is for General Conference Bulletin. I have the hardcopy, though, you may wish to ask Tom if there is one available online. I believe there was a few years ago, anyway.


Perceptive questions. To the first, I would simply say that all who overcome by the blood of Lamb will most definitely be wearing Christ's robe of righteousness as they enter the portals of paradise.

To the second, I will tentatively say, Yes, assuming we're not getting overly complicated on soteriology. Yet penetrating concepts, nevertheless. Thanks for making me squirm. Smile.


Interesting propositions. You seem to be studying quite a bit! I may just have to go over there and learn a few things or two, eh?

Great stuff, Elle. Especially. . .

(Girly sniffler!)

William

You're kidding me. Just googled the GCB 1893 and there it was, Elle. Fantastic.

http://dewsberry.com/content/es/content/atjones/1893GeneralConferenceBulletin-Jones.pdf

William

Did I say something wrong? Well, I came here not knowing much and really didn't hold any views but was studying. Now, this is what I believe according to scripture.


I don't get this joke. I don't have a cold nor do I sniff

Same to you William. I appreciate very much. Tx for giving me the on-line sources

There's that sniffle again? Hope you don't have a cold!

Actually, she is I. And she was simply filled with, um, manly droplets of wonderment, shall we say.

William

Oooohhh! I got it now. Sorry, but I'm terribly slow in catching jokes and reading between the lines. If you don't talk straight with me, you're in high risk to not being understood.

So you're sniffling for me. Aaaahhhh! how sweet: Because I have converted into your camp? Right.

Well hold your sniffles because you might not agree with how I got into your camp. Oh well! We're not here to please man's ideology or thoughts. Right!

NOOOOOOOO!!! Come back before it is too late! If you join that side, constantly consume your thoughts, it will. Always tell people what they must do, you will; never what God has already done.

Seriously, be careful where you tread. I will not say that you cannot have a viable Christian experience being a postlapsarian, as has been said about me for being a non-postlapsarian. But of those I have met, in person and online, few are gracious to those with whom they disagree, allowing for the possibility of some error in their own understanding and embracing the possibility to learn something new.

As a side note, since William brought it up, Kirkpatrick is one of those few. That's why we were able to hammer on this for a couple of years, without once getting disagreeable. We spent most of our time asking lots of questions trying to figure out what the other was saying, rather than trying to point out where the other was wrong. No accusations of antinomianism or legalism, no accusations of heresy, no fear in saying "I don't know" when we didn't know.

Though not common, it is possible to generate more light than heat on this topic. We just have have to remember that grace is not something reserved for the last generation to overcome their faults, but something accessible to each of us today.

You run around in the wrong circles! I know many postlaps that are very gracious in this area. For example, Bill Brace, the evangelist for the Massachusettes Conference is one. When I first started studying the 1888 Message, I introduced myself and said something to the effect that it had come to my attention that he was someone who understood the 1888 message, and he denied it, which took me aback. He said that he had been studying the message, and appreciated it (He didn't want to be arrogant and say he understood it is the point).

I know many people like this, fans of the 1888 message, who are gracious and humble in the manner you are describing.

It's difficult on the Internet to come across with any sort of grace, as the medium denies the use of voice or body language, so posts come out several orders dryer and colder than intended.

Arnold, being a postlapsarian or a non-postlapsararian, does it imply that you have certain belief in regards Victory over sin? Can a postlapsarian believe in 100% Victory in Jesus like I now embrace wholeheartedly? Jesus depended 100% on His Father. Or does it imply that I believe in my works? Because if it implies the works orientation, well then I don't want to say in public I'm a postlapsarian.

Can you tell me exactly what a non-postlapsarian believe that differ so much from the postlapsarian?. Does it all pivot on "He, as the second Adam, did not possess a single taint of our sinful propensities and passions"? I know this phrase is a biggy and is responsible for over half this thread.

I had ask the question in the past in regard to Jesus brain structure. Did He possess inherited neuro-pathways connecting to sinful propensities? Just because you inherited a brain wired for sinful propensities, it still needs an action to strenghten these bad pathways, and since Jesus had the indwelling of the Father's spirit in Him from conception, these bad pathways with time gotten weak and eventually partially replaced by his surrendered selfless life tendensies.

I know the whole focuss of the debate is also in regards to the definition of sin and that it is a moral/spiritual dimension. I too believe in that. I would appreciate some light.

This was very funny.

Regarding the differences, it looks to me like you hit upon it. In the Original Sin idea, if one has certain tendencies, then one is guilty of sin. Therefore Christ could not have had the same genetic tendencies we do, because if He did, He would have been guilty of sin.

On a thread somewhere Arnold talked about how it is more difficult for us to resist temptation than for Christ because these temptations were not something which would appeal to Christ whereas they are for us. Actually, to make sure I'm not misrepresenting Arnold's thought, here's what he said:



This is a big difference between postlaps and prelaps. A postlap would say the temptations were of the same nature for Christ as they are for us, and just as difficult. Actually, Christ's were more difficult, because, given that He never sinned, He was able to stand more. He's like the one tree in a hurricane that doesn't go down. If we ask the question, which tree most felt the force of the wind, it's the one which didn't go down.