TQ, it would help in our discussion if we knew more of what you actually believed about whether Christ desired and lusted to sin, then the issue of assumptions might dissipate.

You asking only questions is fine, of course, but articulating your own set of beliefs in a clear manner would enable a more successful debate on the merits of the three identified groups: postfall, prefall, and synthetic (a combination of the two).


This is certainly a reasonable observation. But to be fair, I don't believe I have based my comments about someone's position because of disagreement but because of information.

For example: if Arnold says he's non-postfall; agrees he's not prefall; disagrees with postfall Tom; argues against postfall theology; harmonizes with Whidden; disharmonizes with Kirkpatrick; et cetera; then, can't I correctly conclude, based on this information alone, that he's a synthetic?

(Sorry for taking your venerable name in vain, mate!)

Now, you're absolutely right, TQ, I could "ask if they believe that." And maybe you bring up a good point here, one worth seriously considering. Nevertheless, mum always taught us foolish boys to ever revere that ancient Chinese proverb found in the Tao Te Ching:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .

(Kidding, Elle!)

William

My apologizes if I've been less than clear myself, TQ. I'll try a little harder to correctly discern your ideas.

Oh, BTW, what I write is not only a reply to those commenting on this thread, as this may be only a minor motivation, but the greater impulse in sharing these reinforcing snippets extends across invisible lines to the lurking undecided and those desperately needing encouragement for Adventism's foundations.

William

More on the subtle pitfalls of Andreasen's so-called "new theology" from LK:

"But Jesus laid aside the powers which were His by right as God; He remained God still; but He came to our world and did much more than take a skin graft or a heart valve from broken humanity; He became as human as we are. He entered into the experience of men who face life every day in sinful flesh, in a flesh that clamors and pulls and provokes to selfishness. He took not just flesh, but He became a whole human person—a whole, fallen-fleshed human person. He defeated sin on the same battlefield as sin must be defeated in my life and in yours.

"But the New Theology always opts for some other position than this. Jesus takes part of our humanity but not all of it. The New Theology will always present Christ’s nature as being like Adam’s before the Fall, or partly like Adam’s and partly like ours, a synthetic blend, a plastic Jesus, an imaginary and malleable God-man to whom few Joe-average humans like ourselves can relate. The key position which the New Theology inevitably battles, is that Jesus took the humanity of a whole, after-the-Fall human being."

William

I see your behaving yourself William. Good!

Is it Andreasen that wrote this quote? So he believed that Jesus laid behind his divine powers? Do yo believe this also? And who else writes about this? I understand that our pioneers were postfall, however, did they believe that Jesus laid his power behind too? Phil 2:6-8

BTW. I have ducks and they don't quack like ducks

i guess adam was not completely human before he fell according to this reasoning. once adam fell he became a "whole human person".

but at least i got a definition for that "clamoring" used so often, one that i can understand: "in a flesh that clamors and pulls and provokes to selfishness".

Whoops. Thanks, Elle. Andreasen apparently coined the term "new theology," while Pastor Kirkpatrick wrote the quote in question.


Ha, brilliant. Mr. Thomas has me a short leash. Did you see that he recently made a funny, graphics and all?!


Good point, young lady. Let me think on it a bit before answering, because I'm tired of misunderstanding things, if you know what I mean.

William

Hi TQ, yeah, I see where that can be a bit confusing.


There it is, and hey, who said miracles don't happen, huh? Smiling.

William

i can understand your motivation, but i believe that if people want to know what the pioneers taught and what our theology is they should go read them-the pioneers and egw-and not, i stress not, read anyones "history" of that. no matter how sincer the person may be giving any history it is, in the long run, based on their understanding of what was believed, and sometimes not an honest presentation of facts. at least not as i have discovered in checking what is said they said or believed against what they actually said and taught.

and thank you. i would appreciate that. you may still disagree with my conclusions and feel the need to "correct" me, but at least, hopefully, it will be what i think that you are dealing with, and not someones elses accusations of what is being said.

True, good point on the first paragraph. And thanks, I hear you, on the second.

William

and i like the definition. it puts everything in perspective. ill stop there and save the objections to the other for another time since we are getting along so nicely now.