Memorable, mate!



William

Unfallen trees which had (or took) sinful natures. As you've been pointing out, one with an unfallen nature easily avoids sin.

Interestingly, McNulty uses the same line of thought (with a unique twist) in his HOC sermon: Christ can be wholly trusted because He is exactly like us and a merciful High Priest who is blotting out our sins on the DOA.

I don't believe original sin theorists from whatever persuasion—or even with any persuasion—can claim the same.

And ultimately isn't this the true genius of authentic Adventism?

A new generation of intelligent, well-educated, Bible-believing students all over the world are crying, "Yes!"

Ooh. Just got a little tingle.

William

Either that or

did Jesus like sin?

except for adam and eve, and oh yes, those angels who fell for satans lies.

Elle, you ask a lot of questions. That's a good thing. The wise listen more than they speak. That kind of indicts a bunch of us, doesn't it? LOL

Anyway, I'll take a shot at some of your questions. And I'm sure my answers won't fit everyone because non-postlapsarians are even more fragmented in their theories than postlapsarians. So my answers will only apply to me; others can and will disagree. But that's OK; we have much to learn, and much more to unlearn.

Almost forgot to answer the question.... Victory over sin is definitely a postlaps calling card; I doubt you'll find one who didn't believe in such victory. But I would characterize postlaps as tending more toward victory LIKE Jesus as opposed to victory IN Jesus. There is a greater emphasis on what Jesus does IN and THROUGH us than on what Jesus has done FOR us. Of course, it may just be a matter of emphasis, but I won't be surprised if there exists postlaps who believe that their good works, empowered by Jesus of course, go part of the way toward their salvation. But don't ask me to name names.

OTOH, many non-postlaps do not believe in personal victory over sin. They believe that Jesus overcame sin, and therefore they do not need to. More than that, some believe that they are unable to overcome sin. I would call that, victory BY Jesus: Jesus lived for them, obeyed for them, died for them, etc.

Then there are postlaps who believe in victory over sin, but not necessarily victory LIKE Jesus. The victory is a combination of what Jesus already did, and what He does today in each believer.

I've been listening to Liversidge the last few days. I would be surprised if he was postlap.


I think almost all would agree with this. The differences lie in what Jesus was depending on His Father for.


The role of works in the plan of redemption is something that you should definitely look into. Do good works precede salvation, or proceed from salvation?


The root of the problem, I believe, is the definition of sin. We all agree that Jesus didn't sin, but since we have different ideas regarding what constitutes sin, we can't quite agree on what He didn't have. Proceeding from that doctrine, there will also be disagreements on what we, regular, non-divine people are able to overcome.

Let's take your example. Is having sinful propensities a sin? If the answer is No, then Jesus could have had them. And postlaps teach that He did. Therefore, we also will have such propensities.

If the answer is yes, then Jesus could not have had them. That's what non-postlaps teach. That belief opens up the possibility of the rest of us also being freed from such propensities. Of course, many prelaps do not take it that far.

I've gone on long enough. Did I say that the wise listen more than they speak? But one last thing before I go.

Here are some inspired descriptions of the nature Adam had after he fell:
What's sinful human nature like?

* depraved
* no disposition to resist Satan
* evil
* in harmony with Satan

That's why I don't believe Jesus was like Adam after his fall. Jesus came to fix what was broken, not to be one of the broken. He came to show us what we can be, not what evil Adam was.

I think this is an unfair characterization. The more I read your posts, the more it strikes me that you must have connections wish some specific set of postlap thinking, as you write many of these characterizations which simply don't fit the people I know at all. Also when I read the writings of Jones, Waggoner, Prescott and Fifield, to name a few, I don't see even a trace of this idea. So I don't know where you're getting it from, other than from postlaps that I'm not acquainted with. It's certainly a wrong characterization. I'm not saying there aren't some postlaps who would fall into this category, just that it's unfair to make this as a general characterization, and they don't fit either people I know personally nor people whose works I've read.



Same comment. Have you read Jones, Waggoner, Prescott and/or Fifield (things they wrote in the 1890's especially). I can't think of anywhere in the writings of these folks that would fall into this category. OTOH I could quote many things that do not.

Of modern day writers R. J. Wieland and Ty Gibson spring to mind as two who definitely do not have this emphasis either.

I don't know where you're getting your ideas from. Obviously from people you've been acquainted with, but not people I'm acquainted with.



Do you mean "don't ask me to name names" that you can't think of anyone who fits the bill, or you prefer not to name names, although you could if you so chose? I can certainly name many names that *don't* fit into this (Sequeira is another one that comes to mind; Finneman as well; Short is another, in addition to those already mentioned).




It depends upon what you mean by "sinful propensities." If you mean inherited tendencies to sin, yes, postlaps agree that Christ had these. However, if you mean "propensities of sin," they wouldn't:



Postlapsarians understand this to mean propensities due do one's own sin, not tendencies passed genetically. I wouldn't touch "sinful propensisites" with a 10 foot pole, and all the postlapsarians I know would likewise not use that expression in relation to Jesus Christ.

Jesus took a sinful nature which was predisposed to sin, as ours is.



If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are." Christ took our fallen nature in order to accomplish this.

If it were easy for Christ to avoid sin, as opposed to us, because He didn't like it, then it's easy to see that we have a burden to bear that Christ did not have to endure, wouldn't it? Christ "pleased not Himself." He denied Himself. He did not do "His own will." This was difficult for Him in the same way it is difficult for us, and for the same reason; it was a like trial to endure, such as we have.

This is missing the very point. Avoiding sin was something for easy for Adam and Eve; they sinned in spite of this. God did not give them some very difficult task to do, but a simple one. The situation for Christ was completely different. *His* temptations were like ours.