We take turns. In a few weeks, it will be my turn to disappear while I move. Actually, I should disappear now. Got work to do.

M: What you said and posted above made me wonder - Is there ever a time when people are not guilty of sinning, a instant of time when they have not yet sinned? Or, does "all have sinned" include everyone, including infants? Have you ever explored this question?

W: Pleasure, MM. I've indirectly studied this subject to some extent, naturally, but I haven't honestly delved into it the way I would like, or the way you obviously have.

Not that the topic is that complex, mind you, but it's simply that there is such a wide variety of opinion, here and everywhere, that perhaps at the moment splitting these theological hairs is better suited for those whose IQ (M-A-T) is at least through intuition and perception nearing the fortunate 500. (Your welcome.)

As you've likely noticed, I lean more toward the panoramic view and historical perspective. . . that propagated 'big pictures for little minds' conceptual metaphor, so popular in today's media. Sorry, mum. Though, again, pleasure "posting" you.

Willy, er, William

M: Ellen White observed, “It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ’s nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression.” (UL 18) This insight seems to suggest whatever disadvantage we inherited from Adam is more than offset by partaking of the divine nature. IOW, the fact Adam possessed a sinless nature does not seem to mean he was able to attain unto heights of sinlessness not available to us in Christ. Am I hearing her right?

W: Incredible quotation, I agree. Are you hearing her right? Why wouldn't you be, mate? Or is there a fragmenting endpoint I don't see for lack of a higher quotient.

We may - must - possess Christ's nature.

That means we don't possess it by default. That also means that what we do possess by default is not what Jesus possessed by default.

At least, not when we're talking about how to be saved.

It is a nature far above unfallen Adam's nature.

M: Willy, I don't think we have ever spoken to each other on this forum. That is, I've never responded to one of your posts and you haven't responded to one of my posts. At least, I don't recall. At any rate, I appreciate your sweet and gentle disposition. Thank you.

W: Oh, your welcome. How thoughtful of you, thank you. Though instead of "sweet and gentle," no doubt what you had in mind and really meant is "rugged and tough as nails," right?

Right?

That attitude is one reason why I think postlaps are misinformed at best or malicious at worst.

I am, at least by Kirkpatrick's definition, a New Theologian. Yet, in terms of overcoming sin, I have yet to find anyone, Old Theologians included, who has a stronger stance against sin.

While some call for complete overcoming of sin in the last generation, I call for complete obedience in THIS generation.

It is the unkind generalization of New Theologians displayed in your quote that led your GYC buddies to label me an antinomian. What a joke! (The ignorance is the joke. Being judgmental is never a joke.)

But the question deals with a pertinent principle, and, as such, it would seem to be deserving of an answer.

It touches on the human nature of Jesus in that it asks if simply having sinful flesh nature makes people guilty.

If it does, then, of course, Jesus didn't have it. But if it doesn't, then, yes, Jesus had it. Or, is this line of thinking way off?

If I'm hearing her right, what does it imply about born again believers and sinlessness? Is pre-fall Adamic sinlessness available to them now, today, in the real sense rather than in the forensic-only sense?

Both. Jesus was both, and what I meant to say is that you are like Jesus. Christianity is obviously working well for you. Praise the Lord.