I'm having trouble following you. Remember Waggoner is a post-lapsarian and did not believe in original sin. What do you think Waggoner meant?

This is what I'm asking you. I can only understand his passage as referring to a sinful nature, and if it refers to a sinful nature he agrees with the prelapsarian position - that babies need a Savior because of their sinful nature.

Of course it is! The prelapsarian position is,
Sin = both nature and choice
The postlapsarian position (in order to avoid the concept of "original sin") is
Sin = choice

Jesus had our nature, and this included what Mrs. White calls "the likeness of sinful flesh." (See first quote below.) From my understanding, this means that He had the same type of physical body which we have, and which Paul has called a "body of death" from which we all strive for deliverance. Jesus' body was affected by millenniums of sin, just as ours are. It was weakened toward sin in the same ways as are ours. However, it was without sin. (See the second quote below.) In contrast to His sinless birth, we are born sinful. (See third quote below.)



Yet the quote below puts a distinction between Jesus' birth and those of common men.



And here is what inspiration tells us of our infant "innocence."



Catch that "Learn it to obey"? Cute! I guess her editors let that colloquialism slip through.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is what I've been trying to point out. The postlapsarian position is not being properly presented (by you and Arnold; Waggoner is presenting it properly).



Isn't is obvious you're misunderstanding things here?

1.Waggoner is a postlapsarian.
2.The things you are asserting about the postlapsarian disagree with what Waggoner says.

Don't you see the problem here? Who should one believe in terms of a presentation of the postlapsarian position? Should one believe you over Waggoner?

To be honest, I have yet to understand all of this "lapsarian" stuff. This is why I have not been addressing such. However, as the Bible also does not use such a term as "lapsarian," I do not feel it is necessary. Simple, Bible-based theology suffices with me.

Nevertheless, I just happened across a quote online while researching other topics, and thought I would present it for everyone's inspection and thoughts.



I guess I am not an average Seventh-day Adventist. I do not accept the theology presented in that quote (from the BRI site).

Here is why, and this is Biblical:

1) The wages of SIN is death. If the child has not sinned, it would receive no such wages--this would be the epitome of unfairness, and would contradict the Word of God which says "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16, KJV)

2) Infants have sinned. They may not be aware of it. We may not be aware of it. Many parents think of their children as "perfect little angels" and do not recognize their faults. Love is blind. Blindness, however, does not cover sin and erase its penalty. As my previous posts point out, a child is a sinner from birth. Even the infant must be trained away from the carnal nature of selfishness, pride, and appetite. The Bible is clear that "in sin my mother conceived me." Perhaps it is the parents who are guilty for the sins of the infant, for it is the inheritance they have passed along. However, the infant is nonetheless a sinner.

[For those who like the NIV, its rendering is interesting...though I prefer the KJV.]

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It's just a term, GC. Like "eschatology." (the study of last day events). To say, "I am a postlapsarian" is simply easier to write than, "I believe that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall." (post = "after", lapsarian has to do with "fall").

On your point 2, the only Scripture cited was Ps. 51:5. Waggoner references that Scripture here:



This was taken from a book which was compiled from sermons Waggoner presented at the 1888 General Conference session.

At any rate, the disagreement comes into play over whether Christ took our fallen, or sinful, human nature, or whether He took a sinless nature like Adam had before the fall. Postlapsarians say Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature.

Another point of disagreement has to do with Original Sin. Prelapsarians think that guilt is incurred by virtue of having a sinful nature, regardless of whether or not one commits acts of sin.

Another difference regards temptations. Postlapsarians believe Christ was tempted from withing. Those who believe in Original Sin disagree with this, believing that Christ would be guilty of sin if He were tempted from within.

A similar thing could be said regarding tendencies to sin. Postlapsarians believe that Christ had the same tendencies to sin that is common to receiving genetically the fallen natures of our parents. Prelapsarians believe if Christ had these tendencies, He would have been "tainted."

Tom,

I guess the following is the nutshell version of my current understanding:

	SINNERS	JESUS
Conception	Conceived in sin	Immaculate conception
Birth	Born as sinners	Born perfect
Physical Inheritance	Body weakened by sin	Body weakened by sin
Moral Inheritance	Sinful traits & tendencies	No tendencies toward sin
Compared to Adam	Adam's fallen nature, bodies much weaker	Adam's unfallen nature, body much weaker
Temptations	Every category *	Every category *
Life	Record/history of sin & failure	Perfect, sinless life
Potential	May overcome inherited & cultivated tendencies to sin	Took upon Himself the weight of our sins
Penalty	Under the death penalty	Undeserving of the penalty
NOTE:	* Temptations include lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life (1 John 2:16)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

I'm not understanding you. Do you and Waggoner think that a baby needs a Savior because of his sinful nature? This is the non-postlapsarian position, and what you call "original sin." Could you please clarify?

That's correct, GC. Since the baby is born with a selfish nature, he is born loving himself more than God, and so he is born as a transgressor of the first commandment.


Why?


The Catholic dogma of immaculate conception is that Mary didn't have a selfish nature, and that's why she didn't transmit it to Jesus. Do you agree or disagree with this?