Had He followed His own inclinations, He would not have taken our sin upon Himself. He doesn't like sin. Becoming sin, being numbered with transgressors, was against His inclinations. He had to fight His inclinations in order to fulfill His mission.

In contrast, it is in perfect conformity to our inclinations to sin. We have to fight our inclinations in order to be holy as He is holy. Just like Him, our mission involves going against what comes naturally to us.

Of course He would have. That was the only way to save us, which was His inclination. Christ is agape, self-sacrificing love; it is His inclination to sacrifice Himself for others.



Again, Christ is self-sacrificing love. I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion.



I agree that if is in conformity to our inclinations to sin. If Christ did not take our sinful nature, then His experience was as different from ours in this respect as possible. Far from being tempted in all points as we are, it's difficult to see how He would have been tempted in any point as we are.



I don't see this. If Christ is self-sacrificing love, then His inclination is to sacrifice Himself. He gave Himself for us. That's the character of God. I'm not seeing how, from your perspective, you would see any difficulty involved in this. What inclination would there be to fight against? His inclination would have been 100% aligned with His Father's. It would have been no harder for Christ to do right than God.

Arnold, two questions. The two points where I see that postlapsarians and prelapsarians differ are the following:

a.Christ was/was not tempted from within.
b.Christ had/did not have hereditary tendencies to sin (i.e. passed genetically).

I'm assuming you are on the prelapsarian side of these questions. Is this correct? That is, you believe Christ was not tempted from within, and you believe that Christ did not have hereditary tendencies to sin (i.e. passed genetically).

These two points above I believe are true of every postlapsarian and every prelapsarian. (i.e. Every postlasparian and prelapsarian disagree regarding these two points).

I don't know any postlapsarians that believe things you ascribe to postlapsarians. Not a one. Now you claim to know some, which may well be the case (quoting someone would be nice). Maybe LK is one. You seem to at least imply that. You seem to say that DP is not. (So even you personally know of postlapsarians who are not. I would expect you would accept my claim at face value that I don't know any, and I know quite a few postlapsarians.)

So the issues that you bring up are at best true of a very small subset of postlapsarians, and it is certainly out of line to make broad brushed statements regarding postlapsarians on the basis of a possible very small subset. It would be fine to discuss the issues you have in mind as issues, but this should be done without the misleading labels. (i.e. discussions of theology you see as aberrant that you've come across, as opposed to something which has to do with postlapsariaism as a whole).

Arnold, as always you did a fine job. I appreciate very much your insights about this subject, as well as your sense of humor in discussing it.
I also appreciate Teresa’s inputs, as she sometimes points out key details.
And while I’m at it, I would like to also thank Tom and William for keeping us “sharpened.”

Why is it in conformity to our inclinations to sin? Because by nature we are carnal.

"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. ... For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. ... But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me" (Rom. 7:14-17).

"Jesus continued: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' By nature the heart is evil, and 'who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.' Job 14:4. No human invention can find a remedy for the sinning soul. 'The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.'" {DA 172.1}

"Here was the Creator of the world, and the ones He came to bless rejected Him. How can we account for this insult to the Majesty of high heaven? Only on the ground that the heart is carnal. It is not in the natural heart to love the Christian graces." {3MR 82.2}

I disagree with the view that Christ was tempted with internal temptations which proceed from a carnal heart. This could only happen if He Himself possessed a carnal heart.

The 1890 SDA's distinguished between "sinful" and "carnal" in terms of our nature. "Sinful nature" was used synonymously with "sinful flesh," and had to do with our genetic make up. "Carnal" had to do with actual participation in sin (i.e., committing sins). Another way this was spoken of was as cultivated or hereditary tendencies to sin. Christ was seen as having the latter, but not the former, whereas we, of course, have both.

I don't recall anyone referring to "carnal" as having anything to do with Christ, whereas "sinful" was commonly used (e.g. Christ came in "sinful flesh" or Christ took "our sinful nature).



Not according to the 1890 SDA's. They felt that Christ, taking our sin, as well as our sinful nature, was able to be tempted as we are. A. T. Jones wrote about this in a lot of detail in the 1895 GCB sermons. Waggoner also writes about it, although not in as much detail as Jones.

I think this was written about after the 1890's as well (but not before about 1887/1888; at least, not to my knowledge).

What are the characteristics of the carnal mind?

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

"The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked." {TDG 34.3}

"These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death." {13MR 14.1}

"Because of sin, his [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience." {13MR 18.1}

We are born with an inclination to disobey the law, or a disinclination to obey it, and, consequently, with a mind "not subject to the law of God" = carnal mind, according to the definition the Bible gives us.


Jones says that Christ's mind shouldn't be dragged into it. How was Christ tempted by the inward temptations generated by the carnal mind?

"You are placing yourself in the way of temptation, and God will leave you to follow the carnal promptings of your own mind." {4MR 214.3}

"And the carnal heart urges on to temptation, and to the practical sanctioning of indulgences which end in sin." {18MR 295.2}

"Every Christian will be assailed by the allurements of the world, the clamors of the carnal nature, and the direct temptations of Satan." {5T 102.1}

Note: I consider "mind" to be a synonym of "heart," and consider both to be, in many cases, synonyms of "nature."

He wasn't. He didn't have a carnal mind. As Jones said, Christ's mind shouldn't be dragged into it.

In the quotes above, your conflating sinful nature with carnal mind. These are two different things. If you're thinking of these as just one thing, that would be a problem. Christ did not have a carnal mind, but He did have sinful flesh.

All the SDA's were consistent in this language. No SDA wrote (by which I mean not Jones or Haskell or Prescott or Waggoner or Ellen White or Fifield or anyone else I know from the 19th century -- or any other century, for that matter) that Christ had a carnal mind, although they all wrote that He took our sinful nature, or had sinful flesh.

Another way of putting it is that Christ had the same hereditary tendencies (passed genetically) that we have, and could be tempted from within. However, Christ never gave into these temptations, so His mind was "the mind of Christ" and never corrupted, or carnal.

It is our inclination to sacrifice others for ourselves. (See the fallen Adam and Eve for the first example of this.) Instead of self-sacrificing love, we are selfish. See the contrast between us and Jesus?


Two questions: Was it right for God to send Jesus to be our sacrifice? Was it difficult for God to send Jesus to be our sacrifice?

My answer is Yes to both questions. Do you answer differently?

I don't understand why you keep asking this. I've never said Jesus wasn't like us. He is divine and sinless. I've said this many times. He took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature. The "our sinful nature" is where the similarity lies. That "our sinful nature" that He took is the same as the "our sinful nature" which we have.



No, I don't answer differently, and this is exactly my point. Under your presuppositions, it should have been no more difficult for Jesus to do these things than God. That's what I said: "His inclination would have been 100% aligned with His Father's. It would have been no harder for Christ to do right than God."

This is correct, isn't it?