teresa, the first site I referenced is General Conference archives. They have documents by all sorts of people in the church, including virtually everyone that has been mentioned in this thread. I don't know why you would mention Bert Haloviak. Oh, I see, that's the article that came up. That was just by chance. I was just giving you a reference to the site. You asked where you could find things in public domain, and that's one place.

Regarding Jones and Waggoner, you asked for help. I have no idea what you already know how to find or not. You seem not to be familiar with what they wrote, so I cited a place for you to find their writings. Many of the issues you bring up they dealt with. They were strongly endorsed by the prophet the Lord sent us, and we are told many times the message they brought was from God, so we can trust they weren't biased.

You can find the sermon "The Word Became Flesh" by W. W. Prescott by googling, which was specifically endorsed by Ellen White.



Where? I didn't see the response. For convenience, I'll repeat my question. Supposedly, Ellen White was the only non-postlapsarian in the church (discounting the Holy Flesh people). Even though there was a controversy (the Holy Flesh controversy) which dealt with the point of Christ's fallen nature, supposedly no one knew that Ellen White secretly agreed with those on the Holy Flesh side and disagreed with the SDA's who were fighting against them. Suppsedly Ellen White correctly Baker on the very issue she was endorsing W. W. Prescott on. None of this make senses to me. Does it make sense to you?



??? You'll have to explain yourself here. I've got no idea of where you're coming from. What unkind assumption am I making? I asked you a question, which you responded by saying you weren't privy to the information needed to respond. I pointed out the information is online, so if you wanted to respond, you could, because the information is available to you. I don't understand what you think is unkind about this response, or what unkind assumption you think I'm making.



teresa, I can only guess that you took something I said the wrong way. I can't think of anything I said which would be deserving of such a response. I'm sorry I said something which apparently rubbed you the wrong way.

This thread has, a long time ago, because a general purpose thread dealing with Christ's human nature. I'm not understanding why you think the thread has gone off track, as we're still dealing with this topic. Yes, you asked a question on page #107, but many other people have made points and asked questions since then. I don't understand why you would think your single question has been what's been driving the thread since then. A lot of questions have come up.

Bump.


Arnold, I also believe that in most cases people experience rebirth before they complete the process of converting to obeying everything Jesus commanded. However, the Bible doesn't describe such cases. Yes, Rom 2:13-15 describes cases involving people who are considered savable because they live in harmony with their conscience and convictions, but in such cases they did not experience rebirth or conversion in the normal sense of the word.

Again, most people experience rebirth before they complete converting to obeying everything Jesus commanded. In such cases, they are lacking in areas that require BIble study and prayer. For example, they may have crucified their old man habits of sin and experienced rebirth before learning about Sabbath-keeping or health reform. In such cases, they are reining in their moral imperfections and keeping them under the control of a sanctified will and mind.

However, they are ignorantly breaking the law of God as it pertains to the Sabbath and health. Nevertheless, they are morally perfect in that they are not violating the law of God as they know it. So, the question is, what do you think such believers can do ignorantly that violates the will and law of God?

Been wondering where that post was. Thanks for finding it.

You ask how such believers can ignorantly violate God's law. You already mentioned health laws, so let's go there.

Let's say someone has given themselves 100% to God, not withholding anything. That means that they are not knowingly disobeying God's will in anything. If they were knowingly disobedient in anything, that means they have not surrendered to God, and they are not born again.

But let's consider one who was drawn to Jesus by His character, rather that His dietary principles. This person fell in love with Jesus because of His love, not His food. So he's studying to find out more of God's will, but he hasn't quite made it through all of Leviticus yet; he got stuck in chapters 4-6 about all the sacrifices for sins done ignorantly, while only one sacrifice takes care of deliberate sin. Wrestling with such deep thoughts makes him hungry and he gets a burger at McDonald's, violating God's will as revealed later on in Leviticus.

Here he is imperfect because he falls short of the holy standard. Yet, because he is abiding in Jesus, His character stands in the place of his, and he is counted righteous because Jesus was absolutely morally perfect.

Are you suggesting such sins of ignorance count as moral imperfections? What does morality have to do with eating a burger at McDonald's? Doesn't morals have to do with volition?

"But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), He lived a sinless life.

Since partaking of the divine nature does not make us God, why, then, do some people seem to think partaking of fallen human nature would make Jesus a sinner?

He who made the physical laws also made the moral laws. Transgression of physical law has moral impact. But that's a topic for another thread.

If you want something more clearly moral, consider adultery. There are people who have multiple wives, not knowing any better.

Let's look at Adam. Sinning once made him a sinner. But no matter how much he partook of the divine nature, it never made him divine. Anyone can become a sinner, but either you have divinity or you don't. They are fundamentally different phenomena.

Aren't we called upon to reach the sinlessness of Adam before his fall? Why is it so odious to think the Jesus Himself had some unfallen characteristics?

A famous postlap wrote:
Is this sin developed by personal choice or inherent at birth?