Yes! We agree on something, at least. Quoting from Pr. Kirkpatrick's QOD paper:


Did the QOD writers really try to introduce a new doctrine of sin?


Here's what they actually attempted to get published:


Yes, this is what the QOD writers wanted published! Enough said on that. One last encouraging quotation from his LGT website:


And so on. . . a fascinating read.

William

You can add this quote to 1Jn 3:6-9 and 5:18

BTW, that's one thing I have against postlaps theology - it is too soft on sin.


Then why do you disagree that Jesus, who hated sin, had an easier time avoiding it than one who loved sin?

There are people who desire and lust to sin. Wouldn't they have a harder time avoiding sin than one who hates sin?


I can't speak for prelaps. But my position is that compared to the unregenerate man who likes sin, the submitted man, including Christ, has an easier time obeying. Is that disagreeable?

BTW, that's one thing I find often lacking in postlapsarian theology - the difference conversion makes in a man. Yes, they point out there's a huge difference between pre-fall man and post-fall man, and Jesus was like the post-fall man, but there's little coverage on the difference between pre-conversion and post-conversion man. As one who tries, but does not always succeed, to resolutely focus on soteriological matters, I fail to see the merit in discussing Christ's fallenness so much more than Christ's convertedness. (I might have invented a couple of words there...)

It is likely that my view of poslapsarian thought is heavily molded by the postlapsarians I have encountered. But now that I think of it, how could it be otherwise? I only know what I see.

I tried to be as accurate as I could in my summary of my view of postlaps. It may be skewed, it may be wrong, but it is what I see at the moment. Of course, there have been outliers in my experience, but I was painting with broad strokes.

Just to give you an idea of what my experience with postlaps has been. I was on Pastor K's LGT email list. I was interested in finding out more about LGT, so I figured this was a good way to learn. I was also excited about the prospect of finding a group of people who were not antinomian, with whom I could get along. That proves I am not omniscient.

I had decided to avoid bringing up Christ's human nature, since I had already gone many rounds with Pastor K on that, and I didn't want to cause unnecessary heat. I figured, as Pastor K pointed out, that Christ's human nature was only 2 points out of the 14 LGT points, so there should be 12 other things we could study.

Try to imagine my disappointment when the first point of discussion was on the nature of Christ. Not only that, but assertions were made that I just could not resist refuting. To make a long story not so long, we spent many months stuck there.

Here's the kicker. Of the dozen or so active members there, almost all had judged me to be some kind of antinomian spy, lurking there to disrupt the "truth" of LGT. Only one person allowed for the possibility that I might be seriously studying, trying to figure out what they were saying.

"Jesus was just like me" certainly didn't apply there. My experience with LGT has, so far, made me more determined not to be postlapsarian.


I can name names. But I am trying very hard not to.

BTW, Sequeira has a unique angle, I think. Significantly dissimilar from other prominent SDA theologians.

BTW2, your list of postlap theologians who share your views did not include any of the participants in the QOD conference, such as Standish and Kirkpatrick.

I have good reasons to support his local ministry, but his postlaps stance isn't one of them. But I knew where he stood before I set foot in his church. And I still chose to drive over an hour to go there every week. Maybe that shows how important I think this is in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, I am envied by some. But for the same reasons, I am pitied by more. It all depends on what kind of spiritual food you like.

Nice. I hear you. God bless you on your search, mate!

Regarding the point you made about confronting a non-welcoming crowd on the LGT forum, I hear you there also.

Mum once told me to never forget that we might not have been overly impressed with the contentious, self-deceived, fire-calling disciples had we met them during their formation, but that didn't diminish the power or hinder the permanence of Christianity.

Wise woman. . . to this day.

Though I definitely understand the discouragement and disillusionment that most of us, if not all, have experienced when not finding the finished product in those who claim so much but live so little.

"They is I. . . you is me. . . and we is them," wrote the hopeless philosopher.

Nevertheless, we know another tiny group of faithfuls in the not-too-distant future will once again allow the Gospel to grow them into the fullness of Christ. And the real Gospel will then, indeed, be the permanent power we have only dreamed about.

Until then, we suffer long, love the insufferable, and long for the suffering Lover.

Peace, friend.

William

Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, too soft on sin? This is a joke?



I didn't.



Yes, of course. They need to be born again.



But I didn't ask this.



You keep making these assertions that I have no idea where they come from. Thing after thing after thing that I see no correlation between what you're saying and reality. Jones and Waggoner have *tons* of stuff that goes into this. Prescott emphasizes this too, in the very sermon I've quoted here several times.



Again, looking to Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, and Fifield as examples, I don't see the emphasis you are talking about.

You have access to the writings of Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, and Prescott. You could base your thoughts on that.



I think this is nuts. It would be like me deciding not to be an SDA because of you (or someone else because of me; not singling out you). Because someone who is a postlapsarian has some wrong ideas does not mean postlapsarianism itself is wrong. I disagree with the LGT framework. I like Fifield's much better. IMO, there's too much emphasis (in LGT) in our performance. This is not a problem of postlapsarianism, but of certain people who are postlapsarians.

But consider Fifield a moment. His emphasis in on God's love and character through and through. Have you read any of his works? I can send you some things if you're interested. A few things can be found on line.

What is the problem of man?



Man's problem is having believed the lies of the enemy, who misrepresented God's character. Salvation depends upon the truth being revealed, understood, and believed. This is how man is set right with God.



Continuing on from DA above:



This was the work of Christ, to reveal the Father to us that we might be brought back to Him.

When Jones started his sermons in 1895 on the nature of Christ, the first point he made was that Christ took our fallen nature in order to reveal God. This is what the emphasis should be, IMO, the revelation of God. This is scratching where it itches.

At any rate, I'm very sorry for you unfortunate experiences with LGT, but you can see, can't you, that characterizing postlapsarianism on this basis of this one group isn't fair?

i wonder if we got specific if we could get on the same page...

did Jesus like lusting after women, the idea of it? or was it a momentary temptation but His utter respect for mankind, including women, as well as His goal for seeking the salvation of all in revealing what God is like override any and all temptations?

did Jesus struggle with sin from self-centered, selfish purposes? or was it firmly refused out of His unfathomable love for us?

Jesus took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature. His assumed sinful nature, just like ours, generated the same temptations for Him as it does for us. He was tempted as we are tempted. His temptations were not easier than ours.

If we had to bear something which Jesus did not endure, Satan would present God's power as insufficient for us.

We do seem to be speaking past one another. It seems to me you're thinking Christ wasn't tempted like we are in these matters, that temptation was easy for Him. But it's very likely I'm not understanding you, so perhaps you could clarify.

Regarding lusting after women, you asked if He liked it. No regenerated person "likes" it. The flesh likes it. We learn to say "no" to the temptations of the flesh. Christ always said "no."

Regarding the following:



you seem to be implying it was one or the other. Why?

What I would say is that Jesus always denied Himself, He "pleased not Himself," He did not do His own will, but the will of His Father, and there were times when this was difficult for Him.

Then babies and children before the age of accountability do not need a savior.