Arnold, please respond to post #112658.

why thank you, maam! how kind of you!

Yeah, postlaps say that all the time. But that's not the difference I'm pointing out.

Look at our statements above. Are they both correct? If they are, were Christ's inclinations the same as ours?


You said, "I'm not seeing how, from your perspective, you would see any difficulty involved in this." In light of this recent exchange, can you see that there is difficulty involved, even for a sinless being like God?


Correct. But do you realize how difficult it was for God to implement the plan of salvation? There was to be a sundering of a relationship that had been unbroken from eternity past. This was no light matter for God. So also, this was no light matter for Jesus.

Do you think their difficulty, their sacrifice, is one whit less than what we are called upon to do? They gave up all, and we are called to give up all.

But what do we give up when we give up all? A sin-polluted heart to be cleansed and returned to us purified.

What did they give up when they gave up all? A lot more than what we are called to give up. And they risked more than we can imagine.

So to say that Christ's difficulty was no harder than God's is not limiting His difficulty in any way. In fact, to say that it was "only" as hard for Jesus as it was for God is to say that He endured the pinnacle of suffering. Yes, sin has caused God more suffering than anyone else, including poor, blind, naked us.

I thought I did. But it turns out I did it on another computer, and forgot to hit Submit. I'll track it down.

Jesus was tempted from within. Temptation is a matter of the mind and heart, so it must necessarily happen within. It was that way for Jesus, for unfallen Adam, and for us.

However, we are tempted by our own unregenerate heart. Adam did not have his own unregenerate heart to tempt him; it was Satan's unregenerate heart that tempted him. Jesus did not have His own unregenerate heart; the temptation originated elsewhere.

Genetically passed tendencies were the lot of Jesus, as it is ours. (But since his human genetic material only came from a female, it is impossible for genetics to explain the basic mechanisms for how Jesus could be male. But we can ignore that detail and continue the discussion as if genetics could explain any of this. Did your century-old postlap authors ever give a genetic explanation for any of this? Anyway....)

But are genetic tendencies a moral issue? If not, then it can't be considered sinful, can it?

So, what does that make me? I don't know. But I have no need for a label.


Didn't I give a postlaps definition of sin? That was from a postlaps website. LK definitely believes it, since it is his site. I think DP believes it also. I think Thomas and Margaret Davis believe it also.

BTW, some of the postlap doctrines I mention were learned on a discussion group that forbids the dissemination of the discussions. So paraphrases are the best we can hope for.


You may claim it's a small subset, but it is the vast majority of postlaps I have engaged in discussions. And most of them are quick to disagree with the teachings of prelaps (real or imagined) regardless of what those teachings are. And all of them claim to be faithful to the teachings of EGW, Jones, Waggoner, and Andreasen. But there's less than 100% agreement on some basic points, as evidenced by you and William on this board.

As you said about me, you can only judge me by what I write. I am similarly limited. I can't evaluate postlap doctrine based on postlaps I have not met. But some of your quotes lead me to believe that the universal postlap claim to fidelity to J&W is unfounded.

Here's one difference between His battles and ours:
Jesus didn't have a carnal mind. We do, and we must war against it constantly.

Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. Christ's inclinations <> the inclinations of our sinful nature. Our inclinations = the inclinations of our sinful nature (before being born again). So of course His inclinations are different than ours (apart from being born again). Again, why wouldn't they be? Why are you bringing this up?



No, not at all. The point you brought up originally had nothing to do with this. Take a look back at what you originally asked.

That it was difficult for God to sacrifice His Son was my point. This difficulty has nothing to do with being human, which is, again, my point.



I'm tempted to say "yes," but of course I don't. But I have some inkling, which is why I brought this up.



There's more to it than this. If this is all there was to it, it would have been a very easy decision for God. What's a moment of personal pain compared to the salvation of countless numbers of beings? It would be selfish for God to even consider not exchanging momentary personal pain for eternal salvation.



This is getting to my point. If it was no more difficult for Christ to do right than for God, and God cannot be tempted, then Christ's difficulty has nothing to do with His being tempted. The idea that Christ took our sinful nature in order to be tempted as we are tempted makes no sense from this perspective.

Surely you don't expect me to be comprehensive in a few paragraphs, do you?


I gave you one perspective (omniscience) but you rejected it. So it's no surprise that it makes no sense to you. It can only start making sense if we are free from the shackles of having to defend tradition. Only when we are willing to believe (not just admit) that it is possible for our traditions to be wrong, even century-old traditions, can we be ready to learn new things. It is possible that there are truths J&W didn't think of. Knowledge shall increase, even after the 19th century.

I said, "Had He followed His own inclinations, He would not have taken our sin upon Himself." And you disagreed with it.

I still don't believe that God can mix with sin, even become sin, as easily as we put on socks. Becoming sin for the Holy One went against the grain of His custom. His inclination was to be holy, not to be sin. I think you might agree with that. Yes?

Because I want to point out that while we battle against our inclinations, they were not that same as Christ's inclinations. Apparently, you agree.

Didn't Jones say something like we battle the same thing that Jesus did?