GC, most of what you presented both prelapsarians and postlapsarians would agree. Where I see a difference is on the tendencies to sin part. Here's something from Haskell:



The first paragraph is Ellen White from "The Desire of Ages," Haskell quoting her. The second is his commenting on that: "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations." This is what Adventists understood universally to be the case (excluding the Holy Flesh proponents) until the middle of last century.

I've asked you several times what you think Waggoner is saying. Let's get to that first please.

I didn't quote Waggoner in reference to why a baby needs a Savior, but to dispel some of the false notions as to what the postlapsarian position is in regards to sin.

If you later wish to discuss what I think Waggoner's position is in relation to the baby question, we can do so.

Returning to Prescott:



This is from the quote of which it was said "I believe every word." As I pointed out, this would only be possible by not understanding what Prescott meant. To substantiate Prescott's meaning, here is Prescott presenting the same argument in different words:



It seems a bit disingenuous to me to be assert that you believe in what Prescott said when he asserted that Christ came in sinful flesh, doing so by assuming a definition for sinful flesh that he did not have. If you look at the language of Haskell, Prescott, Jones and Waggoner, it's all similar, as is the logic. You don't agree with the concepts Prescott was presenting, which were the same that Jones, Waggoner, Haskell and others were presenting. Do you not know that Waggoner got the ideas presented here from Jones?

I guess it's this part of the quote I disagree with, speaking of newborns: "even though he/she has never broken any commandment." To me, sin is the transgression of the law. A baby cannot both be a "sinner" and have "never broken any commandment" at one and the same time.


It's been so long since I studied this (in English) that I may have forgotten the proper term for it. Perhaps I have inadvertently chosen the wrong one, for I do NOT believe that Mary was perfect, only that Jesus was. Is there a term which describes this better?

As a matter of fact, I have sometimes thought that when the Bible says "when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his son..." it implies that Jesus did not enter Mary's womb for the entire nine months, but only joined himself to humanity when she was due to be delivered. This is because, to me, the "fullness of time" seems like a euphemism for "due date." However, I have no strong view on this, I feel it is unimportant, and it hardly matters which way God chose to do it, because He could have been protected from man's sinful propensities in other ways as well. Prenatal influence, however, is a big thing, and I feel that is where most of the "inherited tendencies" to sin are passed on to the next generation.

I do not believe that Jesus had tendencies to sin. His temptations to sin were powerful, and stronger than we are called to bear, and He could have chosen to sin at any time; but He did not have any leaning towards sin, as we do. To me, tendencies toward sin are themselves sinful, and we are called to overcome such tendencies. This is why I do not believe Jesus could ever have had them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have already replied that the only thing I can think of that Waggoner is referring to is man's sinful nature as sin. However, what I want you to do is to explain this in relation to the baby question.

As to dispeling some of the false notions as to what the postlapsarian position is, I think you must dispel these false notions from the mind of Kirkpatrick et al, for this is the position held by all present postlapsarians I know.

To me tendencies to sin is inscribe physically and mentally in our genetic makeup. With Heb 2:17, "In all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.", it was an obligation for Jesus to come as one of us, so that his sacrifice would be acceptable and to be able to justify any of us.

Because of this text and others, I switch to believe that Jesus had the body with the inheritence of the tendencies toward sin, however, from day 1(don't know if it's from the conception like John the Baptist, the womb was filled with the Holy Spirit or as you suggested before birth), Jesus always abideth 100% to the Father's Spirit, and therefore did not sin. I believe that Jesus did not possess any of the Godly powers(omni-potent, immortality, omniscience, or omnipresence)Phil 2:7. He was 100% man, but still was 100% the Son of God, because He was who He was. However, I don't know if being the "Son of God" over-ride his inherited tendensies toward sin? My hunch is no, because of Heb 2.

I agree with Rosangela and Arnold's definition of sin and it's victory is through the spirit/mental and not the physical. We have the promise of having Christ victory through His indwelling spirit.

Is there other Bible text that can shed light on this question?

Elle,

If you wish to quote Heb 2:17, "In all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren," and then tell me that is why you believe Jesus had tendencies to sin, you might as well tell me He was a sinner. We are. If He was to be "made like unto His brethren," why not be made as a sinner? Only then could He truly understand what we experience, right?

Wrong. This is a devil-inspired doubt, but I'm sure every Christian at one time or another thinks it. We all must surely feel at times that since Jesus had never sinned, He could not truly understand our trials at overcoming the sin addiction. But this is wrong. He created us. He knows our thoughts. He lived among us, surrounded by sin--yet He remained unswayed by it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes GC, you are right. I think they mean breaking the commandments by acts of sin.


It seems there isn’t a specific term for this. I think you would have to say “born without tendencies to sin.”


Yes, we will never know it this side of eternity. As the Baker letter says, “The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. ... The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know.” {13MR 19.1}

How about Mrs. White?



To me, it is clear that tendencies to sin are sin. Mrs. White is here calling our attention to the fact that tendencies to sin are imperfections of character, which are sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But Elle, John the Baptist was a sinner, like the rest of the human race, while Jesus was without sin. If both were filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, what made the difference between John the Baptist and Jesus, especially while they were still young children?


You seem to have missed it, but I asked you in the other thread how you explain the first temptation if Jesus couldn't change stones into bread.