Then it would seem Christ did not so good a job in sharing in our sorrows and temptations.



This is rather cryptic. Could you flesh this out? What is it you think corrupts the channels of humanity?

I quoted this from Waggoner a little while ago.



Of special interest is the underlined portion. This may help in reference to your question.

I sorrow that I fall short of the glory of God. Jesus shared that sorrow?

I sorrow that I have moral deformities. Jesus shared that, too?

My Jesus was the Holy One of Israel. He took our sin, but He did not share in our sins.

How did He take our sin without sharing in our sins? Wasn't His suffering and death due to this very fact? (Or do you mean simply that He didn't sin?)

From "The Desire of Ages"



I don't see how what you're saying fits with this. This looks to be saying that Christ took sinful nature in order to share in the temptations and sorrows common to sinful nature. That's right, isn't it?



I don't see how it fits with this either. If He endured every trial to which we are subject, then I don't see how the sin was easy for Him to avoid, unless you don't see this as a trial to which we are subject. Similarly, I don't see how you could assert He was not tempted from within, unless you don't see this as a trial we have to endure either.

He took our sin without partaking of the sin. In fact, He became sin without partaking of the sin.

In Him is no sin. He had no sin. So, He could TAKE our sin without HAVING sin. So also, He could TAKE our sinful nature without HAVING a sinful nature.


I don't apply it universally as you do. You remember this quote?

Did Jesus have the same difficulty of having the corruption of an unsanctified heart? I don't think He did. He was always sanctified.

While our difficulty is in keeping ourselves from sinking to what comes naturally to us, His was in keeping Himself from rising to what came naturally for Him.

This would hardly be sharing in our sorrows and temptations. Nor would it be bearing every trial that we are called to endure.

We're told the most difficult temptations we have to face come from within. Given that Christ bore every trial that we have, and that had we to bear some trial He didn't have to that Satan would represent God's power as insufficient for us, and the He took our fallen nature for this express purpose, it's difficult to see how one can avoid the conclusion that Christ was tempted from within.



How does your question have to do with the question at hand? Here's more of the quote:



She's speaking about our not making excuses for our defects of character, which are due to an unwillingness on our part to do so. Jesus Christ never chose to sin. To overcome He had to confront and overcome the same fallen nature that we do.

As long as you refuse to consider the historical setting of Ellen White's quotes, I don't see how you can come to a balanced understanding of her theology.

And that's the point you've been missing, as most postlaps do. The problem is that we have defects of character, and we are unwilling to let them go. That is the seat of our difficulty. Jesus did not have that difficulty.

In contrast, the postlap's focus is on Christ's similarity to us. That means he is not focusing on that defective character that needs to be fixed.

If you do not see that Christlikeness of character should take much more of our attention than sinfulness of flesh, then we won't see eye-to-eye on exactly what it was that Jesus came to save us from. And that is a much more important issue.

Me:



You:



How is this missing the point? Isn't this exactly what she's saying?



I don't know how else to understand this. "The impossibility lies in your own will." Isn't this addressing an unwillingness on our part?



This is from "The Desire of Ages" Page 24:



You seem bound and determined to crush this thought. But many find great comfort in the thought that Christ really did share in our sorrows and difficulties, and that, indeed, He did, in fact, endure every trial to which we are subject.



This isn't right. When A. T. Jones began his sermons in 1895 on the humanity of Christ, he started out by explaining that Christ took our fallen nature in order to reveal God. The revelation of God is exactly what we need to fix our defective characters. Indeed, it's the only thing that can. As Ellen White put it, this was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth:





You're making a false dichotomy here. It's not necessary to believe in Original Sin to see that Christlikeness of character should be the focus of our attention.

I quoted from 5 postlapsarian authors (in the other thread discussing Christ's humanity) all with the focus which you claim is lacking.

What I'm seeing represented in your posts is a caricature of postlapsarian thought. No quotes. Just your own words. Empty accusations.

In all honesty, don't you find the posts which I presented to be beautiful? If you don't, then you're right, we won't see eye to eye. If you do, perhaps we can find common ground by bringing to light what postlapsarian preaching really emphasized.

No, you're not saying the same thing. Here's your full paragraph:
Let me summarize what I'm seeing from what you said.

Our problem: defects of character.
Christ's problem: fallen nature.

Is that the same problem? You sometimes answer Yes, sometimes No.

Why not summarize like this?

1.She's speaking about our not making excuses for our defects of character.
2.These are due to an unwillingness on our part.
3.Jesus Christ never chose to sin.
4.To overcome He had to confront and overcome the same fallen nature that we do.

From the SOP:



Anyway, I'm not seeing where I said anything about "our problem" or "Jesus' problem" along the lines of what you're suggesting.

If you wish. But it is this inability or refusal to look at it in a different way that keeps you thinking that your way is the only way. Anyway...


#2 is our big problem. #3 is what Jesus did instead. Jesus did not experience #2 while incarnate.

What is so exciting about #2 that we love to do it? Because it puts us in the driver's seat. We call the shots. In short, we say to ourselves, "I will be like the Most High."

Christ's experience was the opposite. He WAS the Most High. He could call the shots and do a good job at it. But His challenge was to NOT call the shots, and submit everything to His Father.

Even by your own summary, it is apparent that what we face is not exactly what Jesus faced. Can you see that yet?


Again, defective character vs. fallen nature. Are those the same problem?

To survive, we have to overcome our defective characters. Did Jesus have a defective character to overcome?