Here's another:

Here she uses it synonymously with "sinful flesh"

Yes, I agree. That short snippet leaves too much room for misinterpretation. Keep in mind, I've searched online for other comprehensive descriptions of NT but cannot seem to find any, and those I did find either don't extensively deliberate on details or arbitrarily demonize the opposition. Do you have any qualified sources in mind?

William

Yes, of course. You may want to then take umbrage with the document's author, Larry Kirkpatrick. But I think I see the reason for your inquietude.

William

You are right. I should have said "some postlaps." I have had the pleasure of meeting a few gracious postlaps. For example, after an hour of talking with Dennis Priebe about soteriology one afternoon, he said he saw nothing wrong with what I said.

So I'll limit my "misinformed or malicious" label to whoever wrote that, and to whoever believes it.


You must not know LK's definition. I think you can find it on GreatControversy.org. The fact that I believe Jesus had a human nature with both pre and post-Fall qualities makes me a New Theologian in his sight.


I don't think I'm being judgmental on this point. Remember, I was there; you weren't. You weren't the one accused of being a spy, of joining the discussion for the express purpose of causing trouble, of being antinomian simply because I believe that Christ's nature is different from mine, of being evil because I ask too many questions (which they haven't answered to this day). And to think I was initially excited because I thought I had found a haven of rest after the many years of battling antinomianism and ungodliness in my church. That was misplaced faith!

I think I'm qualified to make a call on this one. Now, if you have evidence to refute my experience, please present it. I'd like to have my faith restored. As it is, most postlaps I have come across have an inordinate fascination with finding fault with non-postlaps, whether justified or not.

Check this out. For the first couple of years at Mentone, I went back and forth with LK on this topic. We wrote many volumes trying to explain our respective positions. Eventually, he gave me some pulpit time. He scheduled me for a day when he was away, and didn't even have time to listen to the sermon audio. That tells me that he knew me well enough to know that I wasn't going to preach error, and didn't need to check up on me. He's one of the gracious ones.

In contrast, is one of his members. On a day when I was scheduled to preach, she went to LK to tell him that I should not be allowed to speak in church anymore because she heard that I did not hold the same belief on the nature of Christ. This is a lady who had listened to several of my sermons already, and loved every one of them, even wanted to make tapes to send out to her friends. To his credit, LK told her that he had discussed the issue with me at length, and he doesn't think there's going to be any problem. I eventually had a one-on-one with this lady for another reason, and I asked what she thought I believed about the nature of Christ. She did not know; she couldn't even offer a guess. But you gotta watch out for them prelapsarians!

Another time, I was being considered by the board to be added as an elder. One of the board members approached the person who put my name up. Her concern was, "He doesn't believe like us." This was the same lady who gave me a paper by Priebe, and when I said I have some concerns with it, she didn't want to discuss it. (But Priebe himself sees no problem with my position.) Anyway, the lady who put my name up, a postlap herself, replied that her son discussed it at length with me and sees no problem, LK discussed it at length with me and sees no problem, she knows I am definitely against sin so she has no problem, and my kids are well-behaved, so maybe my belief is not so bad. I eventually became an elder, and I doubt that LK shed any tears over it.

So I've seen a range attitudes among those who are "like Jesus."

Last one (on "sinful nature" not meaning simply "weakened nature")

No. I think there's truth in what was said, but very likely no in the way the author had in mind. Specifically, I think we need to know that Christ shared in our sorrows and temptations, that we have a Savior who is "near at hand" and can sympathize with our weaknesses, knowing by experience the strength of our temptations. This was a strong emphasis of the 1888 messengers. Fifield also emphasized this very strongly. And Ellen White too. I think this is a part of the Gospel which is wayyyy under preached.

No, I don't.



To me it would make you a partial New Theologian. Insofar as Christ's human nature is concerned, yes, but insofar as victory over sin is concerned, no.

In most instances in Steps to Christ, she uses "nature" in reference to our unChristlikeness, as opposed to merely our weaknesses. And that makes sense, since the hindrance to being with Jesus is not our weakness, but our evil.

Think I'm going to disagree with you here (or with Arnold's experience)? Um, no!

William