It's 2 for 2 (i.e. there were two things which unfallen didn't have, but Christ's flesh had).



PTI, as I know you're responding to William, but what's the motivation for this question? Of course this isn't dealing with the mind of Christ. Christ had the "mind of Christ," not the mind of fallen man. As A. T. Jones explained, "Don't drag His mind into it. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in the likeness of sinful mind."

The quote tells us that Christ took such a heredity as we have to share in our sorrows and temptations. Surely our sorrows and temptations have to do with more than simply getting hungry or tired.

I'm also interested in your response to my observations regarding the unlikelihood of Ellen White alone being a postlapsarian as well as knowing being able to understand her until 40 years after she died (see post #112340)

im not privy to the "histories" you have read, so i cant respond.

as for the "holy flesh" youve referred to all i know is what egw has said, and again have not been privy to any "histories" of that event.



in her references to that movement i havent seen where prefall/postfall nature comes into it, or ever had anything to do with what was going on. what i understand her to be saying is these people believed they could somehow arrive at "holy flesh" which can only happen at the second coming. that movement seems quite similar to the "holy spirit" thing going on nowadays.

This is public knowledge. Those disagreeing with the postlapsarian position agree with the facts I've presented; these aren't in dispute. The dispute has been over the viability of Ellen White's being the lone prelapsarian of the church.



The knowledge is in the public domain. I've been asserting the whole time that the viewpoint you've been presenting is not a viable alternative and giving reasons why. As Ellen White points out, the truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

It's a matter of public record what Donnel believed. I've quoted this several times. It's also a matter of public record how Haskell responded, which I've quoted several times. I've given the sources. It's public record that our church responded by publishing postlapsarian articles for several months, and presented postlapsarian sermons at the General Conference session.

So you could respond if you wanted to. You have enough information.

You could also respond hypothetically on the basis of what was presented being true. That is, assuming these things were true, without admitting them to be, what would be your response to these questions? Is it really feasible that Ellen White, in your opinion, would have acted the way that she did?

Ah, there he is! But before compiling the surrounding context for what was a rephrasing of Paulson, and then forming my response, I'm far more curious and interested to see an original-sin hypothesis than I am to deconstruct the good pastor. Make sense? So, um, take your best shot. . . But, hey, where's your basketball?!

William

And let's not forget that Donnell and Davis actually confessed to their error in front of about 300 delegates at the conference committee of the Indiana churches. Donnell, of course, was later reinstated after both were summarily defrocked.

But Davis continued to believe in Christ's prefall nature—confirmed later by Hankins' eight questions—and adhered to a theological argument that had insisted that "Christ took Adam's nature before the fall," just as Haskell had warned Ellen White.

When will we learn? Sigh.

William

If I'm understanding you correctly, Elle, my answer would be, "Yes," Jesus laid aside His divine powers in order to embody an exemplary life for us to pattern. I would have to check to see what our forefathers believed, however.

William

"In itself the act of consenting to be a man would be no act of humiliation were it not for the fact of Christ's exalted preexistence, and the fallen condition of man. But when we open our understanding to realize that in taking humanity upon Him, Christ laid aside His royal robe, His kingly crown, His high command, and clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might meet man where he was, and bring to the human family moral power to become the sons and daughters of God." {17MR 25.1}

"The heavenly universe were amazed at such patience, such inexpressible love. To save fallen humanity, the Son of God took humanity upon Him, laying aside His kingly crown and royal robe. He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. One with God, He alone was capable of accomplishing this work, and He consented to an actual union with man. In His sinlessness, He could bear every transgression." {17MR 26.2}

William

To make sure we understand each other, do you mean by "divine powers" that Christ was stripped of his omni-potence, omniscience, omni-presence and immortality before the reincarnation? He came on earth devoided of these powers? If so, yes it would be great to know if the pioneers believed this also.

To me this quiescence explanation does not cut it out. You can't die if you possess immortality. It just doesn't work that way. It would defile a law of nature.

I didn't consider this angle when I posted the two quotes by EGW, and haven't given it much thought. It appears there were two options for Him: divesting Himself of these three elements before the incarnation or completely subjugating them after the incarnation.

Either way, what I am certain is this: He didn't utilize of any of these "powers" to overcome sin in fallen flesh or else Satan would have cried, "Foul!"

William

I would appreciate if you give it some thoughts and prayers, Will. I have no problem seeing that it's possible for the other three powers to be "subjugating" however, the immortality just doesn't work. He had to be mortal like a man to die. And I don't buy that he had both, immortality and mortality, at the same time.

Tommy didn't answer my question in regards to the meaning of
"begotten" and being in the "bosom" of the father. I think this truth shed light into this. Since Jesus was begotten from the Father, these where given to him at the beginning of creation, and was able to be taken from him at the reincarnation, and given back to him at the resurrection. However, I'm just starting to search scriptures on these.