i have just started looking for all references to "sinful nature", "fallen nature", etc., to see if she has different uses for each, and how they would relate to bible terms, so if you could help me out here.

I had noticed it, thinking it was quite nice, especially the last part. I hadn't seen this before your quoting it.

They seem pretty straightforward. She says we have a battle to fight against sin and our sinful nature. If "sinful nature" simply meant "weakened nature" in the sense of fatigue, I don't see how what she said would make sense.



You mean once in Romans 8:3? Well, Ellen White endorsed Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh," (as "truth separated from error") and Prescott, in that sermon, used the phrase a couple of dozen times, so looking at that sermon may help in this regard.



You just requoted this, with part of it in red (the red part being why I included the quote, so it would seem you're agreeing with me.) Please provide some sort of comment. It seems clear to me that this could not possible have the meaning "weakened nature."

I haven't said a word about the "other side" in regards to "New Theology." My primary bone of contention on this thread has been the ignoring of history in the view that Christ did not take our sinful nature.

i was responding to arnolds post and just left in all the rest for context.

Hi TQ: Thank you for bringing up this point, as it will allow an opportunity to clarify any misconceptions and set the record straight. So this is less directed at you but more for the larger group. Then I'm running out of the door late. . . again.

Your statement unfortunately implies a condemnation of “they,” or individuals, as opposed to it, a theological system. I shudder to think anyone on this forum would stoop so low! Indeed, Adventists in the past have vehemently opposed Catholicism's joining of church and state, yet have always treated its individual worshipers graciously, compassionately.

Pertaining to us here, and regardless of one's side, each one of us has a peculiar perspective to offer this HOC thread, making for a far more interesting whole. Don't you think?

Some of us may appreciate a gathering process similar to trial-based discovery. And like the prosecuting barrister who discreetly “unpeeled the onion” before a convinced jury, some of us enjoy obtaining information, like one might at an American deposition, for example, where you can lockdown someone's testimony for litigational reasons.

In my short time here, I sense there is one side in this discussion asking most of the questions while answering very few. Question. What debating theologian could fathom having an analytical argument on Christology without being 100% certain of their opponent's position!?

In collecting information for both sides, our metaphorical "discovery" seeks to gather pertinent evidence or testimony in order to encourage informed conclusions in the courtroom of discussion.

So what you are witnessing in this painstaking endeavor is not a condemnatory spirit. What you are observing is an honest attempt to unpeel the onion for argument's sake.

Condemning a precious child of God for believing differently than I? No, never! Yet do we each approach this often-uneasy topic with a preferred style and methodology?

In the end, I have little doubt each of us here is seeking only one thing: to discover the Truth. . . and grow to be like Jesus.

William

i was making a general observation of what i have seen in several forums, some much more "condemning" than others.

as well as making a generalization based on what ive seen on these forums, some worse than others.

Right. There is no excuse in thinking that all our expositions of scripture are without error.

The promise goes back to the sinlessness of unfallen Adam. We can be converted to the point where we have some of the qualities of prefall man. And if that's a condition we can reach, I think it reasonable to say that Jesus also lived in that condition. Do you agree?


Indeed, it is odious to think it, and even more odious to experience it.