Sure. Out of curiosity I'll brush up on it and try to see what you're seeing. BTW, Heppenstall also echoed Covenant-like soteriology. And his conclusions were what I was intimating by juxtaposing CT and the IJ:


So there goes the Most Holy Place for CTs, I guess.

I've got some reading to do.

William

They're strong enough the first time. I keep repeating them because they haven't been addressed. You're the only one who's even acknowledged that the point has been made. As I've pointed out, I believe this is the weakest point in the theology. Yes, one can try to parse Ellen White this way or that way, but history does not lie. We know how her contemporaries understood her, and she was alive to correct them had they been wrong. We know how she interacted with them. She endorsed Jones and Waggoner's teachings, as well as Prescott, even when speaking specifically on the subject at hand. She disagreed with Donnell and sided with Haskell, Waggoner, and Jones in their fight against the Holy Flesh movement.

Just imagine if the following were true:

1.A couple of ministers preached a message of righteousness by faith based on the premise of Original Sin.
2.A third minister joined them, preaching a specific sermon on Original Sin, and she endorsed him as well, including that specific sermon.
3.A movement arose, called the "sinful flesh" movement, teaching that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. SDA's opposed this movement by arguing that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall. Ellen White supported the SDA's in their fight against the Holy Flesh movement.
4.A minister quoted from "The Desire of Ages" and commented, "This is not fallen humanity with its hereditary tendencies to evil," to which she offered no comment.
5.She preached alongside the two preachers mentioned above. She received questions regarding their teaching, and explained that Original Sin had to be true, or else Christ would have been tempted from within, as we are.

This is what I think is funny. The history so clearly demonstrates what the truth is, for anyone who wishes to investigate it. Where did the new ideas come from regarding Original Sin? People just had an epiphany on how Ellen White should be interpreted? Nobody knew how to read her writings until 1950?

True that (thanks, Arnold). However, the basis for Adventism is Daniel 8:14 and Rev. 14:12, and from what I read of your synopsis of CT, a final resolution to the great controversy is missing.

Some of what we're discussing on the "Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin" thread, though thoroughly enjoyable, is also a bit tedious at times. Few would disagree, I imagine.

The question of the nature of Christ, to me, is not a debate over the finer theological points we've been recently participating in.

The big picture demands that either the cleansing of the sanctuary (1844) is to purify and perfect a denomination to stand without sin, or orthodox Adventism is the result of the inability of certain "wild-eyed irresponsibles" and "lunatic fringe" to admit that their prophetic view of Daniel and Revelation is incorrect.

Consequently, the real issue becomes whether or not we can overcome sin. If Jesus could not enter the great controversy conflict and overcome in sinful flesh, our flesh, then we can't either.

Is this really what Evangelical Adventists want to challenge?

In the end, I pray to remain married to this Adventism—and the remnant church—because in my christology, harmartiology, soteriology, and eschatology. . . Jesus is married to me.

William

I turn my head for a minute and look at the mess you guys made! I expect this to be all cleaned up by the time I come back!

Look, after she endorsed Crozier and William Smith, I realized that her endorsements were of a very general nature, because many points they taught were in flagrant disharmony with what she taught.
And as I've pointed out seeeveral times, she herself said there were some points on which she disagreed with Waggoner. What I don't understand is why you try to dismiss this kind of statement, making it appear that she endorsed everything he said.
I've also pointed out in the past that she did not always correct people. Many of them probably weren't ready to be corrected. Waggoner himself doesn't seem to have accepted, or understood, what EGW wrote in The Desire of Ages, for a couple or so of years later he published Christ and His Righteousness, still presenting the view that Christ had had a beginning.
So I have addressed your points in the past. You keep repeating them but I don't think every time I have to repeat the same refutations, especially because it will always be useless, since we will not reach an agreement.
As to original sin, of course one thing is tied to the other. If they believed Christ's humanity had sinful tendencies, how were they going to believe in original sin? Of course one tends to not consider the quotes which seem to go against one's view. You accuse non-postlapsarians of this, but this applies to both parties.
By the way, don't forget to address my post #112064.

Kind of like saying I am wrong because somebody in Muncie a century ago was wrong, and he said things that sound kind of like what I am saying. Yeah, nuts.

BTW, if a postlapsarian teaches that Jesus was "just like" him, and he proceeds to demonstrate to me exactly how sinful his nature is, I can either believe the postlaps and decide that I want nothing to do with Jesus, or I can believe other testimonies about Jesus and decide that the postlaps doesn't know what he's talking about. I ask myself, "Do I want to be like him?" The answer is No.

But when I look at Jesus and ask, "Do I want to be like Him?" The answer is Yes.

How is it missing? Christ regained for us the heaven Adam forfeited. The second coming of Christ will bring the reward of eternal life to those who accepted the provisions of the covenant of grace and returned to their loyalty during probationary time.


Why does someone have to believe that Christ's humanity had tendencies to sin in order to believe that victory is possible? Does a drug addict have to believe that Christ felt the compulsion to use drugs in order for him to believe that he can overcome? What about a homossexual? And a prostitute? I've never seen things in this light, but when, feeling the power of sin, I cried for help, the Holy Spirit has always brought me victory.

By the way, I didn't understand the reference to Arnold.

It would be like that if Ellen White wrote specifically that Larry Kilpatrick was wrong and Norman Gulley was right.



This sounds confused. At any rate, the postlapsarian theology to be concerned with is that which took place in the 1890's. We shouldn't be teaching things different than what was being taught then. We have plenty of source material from Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, all of which were endorsed by Ellen White.



That's good. And you can be like Him, because He took your sinful nature upon His sinless nature and prepared the way, as Prescott explained in the sermon that Ellen White endorsed.

She didn't endorse them thousands of time, nor do so with the language she used with Waggoner and Jones. She referred to Jones and Waggoner's message as "the beginning of the latter rain," as a "message from God" and wrote strong rebukes against those who opposed it. Sort of gives on pause.



This is really badly misquoting her. If you look at the context, what she was trying to do was open up the minds of those in opposition to investigating what was being said. She wasn't saying she right and they were wrong, but that there may be some new stuff for her as well. She said she would be as a little child to receive all that the Lord had for her. She was *learning* from Waggoner when she made this remark, and encouraging others to do the same, not setting herself up as a judge over him.

I'm only aware of one issue that she disagreed with either Jones or Waggoner on regarding theology, and that was over Waggoner's assertion that Jesus could not sin, because He had perfect faith. Waggoner quickly corrected that.

The fact that she was quick to point out this error, and that Waggoner quickly took the correction to heart, makes one wonder how one could possibly think that she would allow Jones and Waggoner to go on and on and on and on and on regarding Christ's taking our sinful flesh, if that's not what she believed. This was the cornerstone of their theology. How could she have endorsed it as a "message of God" as "truth separated from error" (in the case of Prescott) if, in reality, it was fundamentally wrong?



You're misquoting the statement. I'm not dismissing it; I'm reading it in context. Again, she only corrected on error that I'm aware of. She specifically endorsed the view of the Covenants, of the nature of Christ, of the law in Galatians. What I don't understand is how you can dismiss these comments, disagree with 90% of what Waggoner taught, and somehow convince yourself that you agree with Ellen White's endorsements of their message.

Every time I quote something from Waggoner or Jones, regardless of the subject, you disagree with it. I can't think of when you've agreed with it, and I've quoted dozens and dozens of pages. There's a serious disconnect here.



This is a very weak argument. There is what, one, reference to Waggoner's saying something in some article? Both Waggoner and Jones theology of righteousness by faith was predicated on Christ's taking our fallen human nature. Jones said there was salvation in this very thing. They both emphasized this for years.

You make these extrapolations that don't fit. You want to equate one endorsement for Crozier or Luther with over a thousand for Jones and Waggoner, or one reference to Christ's divinity with hundreds regarding Christ's humanity. These aren't valid comparisons.



You're the only one. No one else has uttered a peep.



Your "refutations" don't hold water. They've been "swept aside," to use the water metaphor.



I agree that it's human nature to emphasize the quotes which favor us and de-emphasize the ones that don't. I've made this very point. This is why the study of the historical setting is so important. We can interpret her this way or that, but what happened in history is set in stone. We know who she endorsed, and what sermons she endorsed, and who she fought against.