Are you absolutely sure I haven't understood your argumentation without resorting to "preconceived assumptions"?


Admittedly, TQ, you perhaps have not come fully out of the closet (like someone else I know), yet it's obvious your queries stem from a typical prelapsarian mentality. So it is from your own commentary that I have formed my conclusion.

Furthermore, Rosa has been rather explicit with us by honestly sharing her proclivities for Original Sin. So, IMO, you by now should know "what Rosangela believes."

BTW, hurry back Rosa and be safe!

William

Teresa, utilizing the supporting thoughts of others is only done so that there aren't any preconceived assumptions as to what one believes. Students understand that using primary, secondary, or tertiary sources is necessary if you want to successfully argue your premise.


First you mentioned that we could more easily clarify this issue were we to stay with the Bible. OK. So I gave you a list of texts supporting Christ's postfall nature. Silence.

I thought: OK, she's tired. Now you insist on having my opinion when I already gave you the Bible's opinion. In truth, TQ, I've already articulated in several places what I believe "sinful flesh" represents (i.e., "fleshly desires," "clamorings," etc.): these do not produce guilt until we act upon them. Sin as choice is typical postlapsarian fare.


It should. How else do we categorize our doctrinal beliefs if we don't align them with the teachings of those before us? Most of us simply don't have the time to articulate every doctrinal nuance in this quick-hit format, so we quote theological "experts" to save time while still sharing our faith.


Not an ideal analogy. Because in quoting other biblically-faithful sources, if the Bible is whisper number one, the whispers between persons 2-5, for example, will get louder and clearer not less loud and clear, especially because Adventism has a modern prophet at number two, and two Spirit-ordained "messengers" at numbers three and four.

Theoretically speaking, want to guess who number five is?

William

Hi Arnold: This is one of the more common quotations used by those in the New Theology camp. But I'm sure you didn't know that, right? Smiling.

I'm not saying anything, actually, Ellen White says it for us in the very next paragraph: "Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God.

I've already highlighted this point elsewhere. However, doubtless you're familiar with Paulson's higher/lower nature treatise:

"So what does she mean when she says Jesus never had the same corrupt propensities we have? Simple. She means He never chose to sin, and thus never acquired a taste for sin. Notice she doesn't say His nature wouldn't be corrupted unless He was born with the same fallen nature other humans are born with. Rather, the corruption here described would occur only if He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God. Choice, not birth, is the source of the corruption here described."

The Spirit of Prophecy cannot be more clear, nor ever contradicts Himself:

"Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." 4SDABC 1147.

The "degraded and defiled" would be his lower nature, if subscribing to Paulson's categorization, but Jesus' higher nature couldn't be degraded, since this is where His choices were made.

Ellen White could not have taught "original sin," or its more sanitized version involuntary sin, and still prophetically endorse Jones and Waggoner, as I quickly showed to in my, um, fanciful column.


William

For the record, we have a telling statement from Pastor Kirkpatrick regarding the reasons for the extremely subtle ignoring of Jones and Waggoner by those holding to every form of Original Sin.

"Similarly to the point concerning the New Theology and 1844, when it comes to the question of 1888, two tracks are taken by New Theology people that demonstrate its core antagonism to Adventism. The following concerns are, however, more difficult to clearly prove because few New Theology advocates openly discuss 1888 in any depth. . .

"Unfortunately, the New Theology advocates take one of two approaches to 1888: They either (a) Try to pitch the idea that we just don’t know what 1888 was about anyway and so there is nothing to be done about it but to move forward in ignorance, or (b) They teach that what 1888 was about was the reassertion of the same gospel understanding as they declare was held by Martin Luther."

William

my point exactly. based on comments i have made you have decided you know where i am coming from. so you have given me "history" lessons based on your understanding instead of answering my questions. history lessons based on "this person said", "that person said" i might add. why would i base my beliefs on what others say, when i can just go to the bible and sop? it appears that since i havent come to the conclusions you have you have decided that i was wrong and needed correcting, without touching on the points i am trying to clarify.




if i knew what the "original sin" doctrine was i could say i knew what roseangela believes. i have on rare occasions heard the term but do not know what it stands for. what i am picking up from these discussions seems to be saying that babies are born sinless until they actually "commit" a sin, some vague, undefined sin.

from my understanding a prelapse does not believe that we are to, and can, overcome all sin. is this your conclusion of me? would you admit to it?

so it boils down to, you did not understand my question. glad to have that cleared up.

my question seemed pretty clearly stated to me. apparently not to others. not sure if i can clarify it any more. is it possible that "fleshly desires," "clamorings," are just undefined words? do those using them have clear ideas, or vague ideas as to what they mean?

im not aware of anyone responding to this post #112163. if i am not coming across clearly im at a complete loss as to how to get clearer.

i have a vague idea what that is about since i was in someones class who was teaching those things and ended up walking out. he had quite a bit to say about the ignorance of the pioneers.

i have an idea. instead of assuming someone believes these things because they dont see eye-to-eye with you, why not ask if they believe that?

we might have a real discussion with real people instead of having a discussion with our preconceptions of what those people are saying. but thats just an idea. after all, what would i know.

This is in response to post #112163. I didn't understand the last couple of things you said in that post, so I skipped it.



The desires spoken of in James 1:15, where it says that every man is tempted when drawn of his own desires and enticed. A. T. Jones speaks of this here:





No. Limiting it to only this would make a number of her statements not make sense. For example:



The SOP tells us our most difficult temptations are from within:



Since if we had to endure any trial or temptation that Christ did not face, Satan would present the power of God as insufficient for us on that point, and since our most difficult temptations are from within, it must be that Christ endured these.



It would be absurd to interpret the history of Christ's earthly ancestors as dealing with things like hunger. He came with such a heredity as we have to share in our sorrow and temptations. Surely our sorrows and temptations are not limited to things like hunger.



We're not born God. God is agape. In order to reveal God to us, Christ came to our world. That we might better understand the revelation, Christ took our fallen nature upon His sinless nature.

thank you for answering, tho im still at the same place i was before. ill just have to stick with the conclusions im coming to.

i would like to point out that the difference, big difference, between Jesus and us is that we have given into temptation, from infancy, even birth. He did not have to battle indulged sins. so He didnt have to battle everything we have to battle. so, other than being completely human, He is not just like us. so, for me, it doesnt really matter whether He came with prefall or postfall humanity.

as for suffering hunger, for example, i can see where that could be a big comfort for those who are hungry and dying of starvation, since He also suffered that without giving into temptation to relieve it. so we have no excuse for sinning no matter what we are going through and i see that as the bible and the messenger of the Lords points.

if adam and eve had not sinned their children would not have been born "in sin", or automatically sinning, giving into temptation. they would not have been born selfish.

Well, I don't know to what extent you can say a new born is "tempted" (can one be tempted from the womb? how about zygotes?), but certainly that Jesus Christ did not sin is a big difference.

I think you may be operating under a misconception. Postlapsarianism is not about Jesus being the same as us (if He weren't any different than us, He could be our Savior, and if we were any different from Him, we wouldn't need one), but about His taking our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. In Christ were united the natures of God and Adam the transgressor.



This isn't right. If you look at the Psalms, you can see His battles were like us. Take a look at Psalm 40, for example:



A. T. Jones spoke of this concept a lot in the 1895 GCB sermons. E. J. Waggoner as well. Christ didn't simply take our nature, but He bore our sin as well, and not just on the cross, but throughout His whole life. You'll notice that the SOP tells us that it was Christ's bearing our sins that made His temptations so difficult (in the wilderness, I quoted this just a few posts ago).

Also, if you'll look at the DA 24 quote, you'll see it clearly affirmed that Christ endured every trial that we have to endure.



It does matter, although you may not be aware as to why. But, again, it looks like you're suffering under a misconception because you keep speaking of Jesus not being like us.



But hunger is just a minor part of the sorrows and temptations we have. Remember that Christ took our fallen nature to share in our sorrows and temptations (as well as to reveal the Father to us).



That's true. Such is our nature. We may rejoice that Christ took that nature, overcame in that nature, and thus provided the way by which we may have victory in said nature.