This looks like the sticky point.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that when God does something, there is absolutely no desire in Him to do something else, no chance that He would have done something else?

For example, God sent His Son to die for our sin. Does that mean that God was not inclined at all to not do that?

We are born with inherent propensities of disobedience, therefore we are born with a carnal mind.
If Christ was also born with propensities of disobedience, His mind was also carnal.
Was He born with propensities of disobedience or not?


Since these constitute our strongest temptations, then this means, according to you, that Christ wasn’t tempted in all points as we are.

His [the Christian’s] strongest temptations will come from within; for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart. {BEcho, December 1, 1892 par. 4}

(I have already demonstrated that natural heart and carnal heart are one and the same thing.)

If you're defining "propensities of disobedience" as "a carnal mind," then Christ wasn't, since Christ didn't have a carnal mind. If you define it as "our sinful nature," then He was, because Christ was born with our sinful nature, which He took upon His sinless nature.



I've pointed out the following many, many times.

Christ not only took our flesh, but bore our sins in that flesh. He did so His whole lifetime. In addition to pointing this out, I pointed out that it is significant. Both Jones and Waggoner discuss this. Jones goes into great detail regarding this in his 1895 GCB sermons.

The Scriptures are clear: Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Jones explains this to mean that Christ was tempted in all ways as we are tempted, yet did not sin. All postlapsarians have understood Heb. 4:15 in this way.

If we look at the context of Heb. 4:15, it brings out that Christ's doing so enables Him to comfort us. Ellen White makes the same point in DA 24, saying that Christ took our heredity in order to share in our sorrows and temptations. She quotes this same verse.

So we have the following logic:
a.Christ took our sinful nature.
b.He did so to share in our sorrows and temptations.

Now unless our sorrows and temptations are limited to things like being tired, the logic breaks down. His being tempted in all points as we are is linked to His taking our sinful nature. This is an important point to lay hold of.

If Christ's being tempted as we are tempted simply had to do with broad categories of temptation, which didn't involve His taking our sinful nature, it doesn't make sense to *link* His taking our sinful nature with being tempted in all points as we are.

I could expect you to mention the salient point.



This perspective, as I understood it, would portray God in a very negative light, so I rejected it. If the only reason, or primary reason, that God doesn't do something evil is because He sees that it would turn out badly, that, IMO, doesn't speak well at all of God.



It's a surprise to me that this would make sense to you. Perhaps you could flesh it out a bit, because the only thing that makes sense to me is that I've not understood you. It's hard for me to understand why you would think omniscience would be an important factor.



Well, this is a first. I haven't been accused of being traditional before.



Of course they didn't think of everything, but isn't there a difference between not seeing something totally correct and having it completely wrong?

For example, Ellen White mentioned that it is a mistake to think that our doctrinal expositions must be without error. There are a number of non-traditional positions I take which I believe fall into this niche. However, we wouldn't say this could include something like the Sabbath being on Saturday, would we? You're not suggesting as a possibility that maybe Sunday really is the right day to worship on?

Saying that Jones and Waggoner had the human nature of Christ wrong raises many questions. I'll just mention two.

1.If Jones and Waggoner were wrong regarding Christ's having taken sinful flesh, this raises the question of why Ellen White endorsed their teachings of righteousness by faith the way she did. She would have had to have been ignorant of, or not care about, the connection between righteousness by faith and the correct understanding of this subject. This link appears to me to be a strong basis of your posts (i.e., you think postlaps have this subject wrong, therefore they have righteousness by faith wrong). So how would Ellen White get this wrong?

2.Even more to the point, how could Ellen White endorse Prescott's sermon which was explicitly about the fact that Christ had sinful flesh? She endorsed this sermon as "truth separated from error."

Another point to mention is that it is exceedingly odd to characterize Jones and Waggoner as traditional. Since God first sent the message He did through them, it has been consistently fought against, and continues to be fought against. You can't label something "tradition" which has never been accepted.

No, this came after. You're mixing up quotes. You would need to go back to what your originally said, which had something to do with it's being as difficult for Christ not do to something (like use His divine power) as it is for us to overcome our temptation.



If the choice is between doing something distasteful and having to suffer through that for a very brief period of time, or doing that distasteful thing and saving perhaps millions of beings for all eternity, I'm not understanding how you would think this would be at all difficult for He who is agape.



Christ's own nature was sinless and divine. Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. That sinful nature which He took is like our sinful nature.

When we are born again, it becomes our inclination to do God's will, just as it was for Christ. Yet we still have a sinful nature to fight against. So did Christ.



This is rather vague. Could you quote something please?

I mean that God could not be tempted to sin.



No.

I'll try asking the questions another way. If I asked Rosangela these questions, she would unhesitatingly deny that Christ was tempted from within, or that Christ had hereditary tendencies to sin (genetically passed).

So do you disagree with Rosangela? Rosangela has written at length on these subjects, so you should be able to this question.

From Rosangela's comments regarding what you have written, it appears to me to be certain that *she* thinks you agree with her on these questions. What do *you* think? Is your answering my questions differently than she would represent an actually difference of opinion, or are you simply defining the words of my question to mean something different than what she understands them to mean? (She understands my questions the same way I do, btw. You might be understanding them differently, which is what I'm trying to get at).

By the way, thank you for addressing these questions. I wish I had asked them a long time ago.

You should be able to defend your allegations by quotes. If you can't quote something, it doesn't need to be discussed. If it's something only a small group of people believe in some discussion group somewhere, it's not a general belief, and shouldn't be labeled as such. (i.e. "What I don't like about postlapsarians is they believe ...") If it is a general belief, OTOH, it shouldn't be any problem for you to quote that belief.

It's not fair to make broad brushing allegations publicly with no evidence.



I'm sure I know more postlapsarians than you do, and I can assure you these are not general views. How many people are you talking about?



That's not been my experience. I'll disagree with prelaps on the subject of Christ's humanity, but not other things. Some of my best friends are prelaps.

The fellow whose overall theology is most like own is a prelap.



This would need to be limited to the subject of Christ's humanity.



Yes. For example, Waggoner's view on the Covenants is a good example of this.

as has been brought up before ellen white endorsed both crozier, who had one view of the daily, and smith who had another view of the daily, not to mention believed Christ had a beginning. waggoner also stated that. so she can endorse a message without endorsing every point of that message.

for me Jesus became a human, just like im human. i dont need more. adam was human, tempted and fell, Jesus, while still God, became human was tempted and could have fallen, but didnt. i also know that He is mighty to deliver me from my sins without Him having to be tempted from within, however that might be understood.

for me that is not, i repeat not the lesson. the lesson i get from ellen white is that i need to be in much more prayer and study than i am to overcome. i need more of the word in my heart, to live by it. i need to i need to concentrate on how Jesus dealt with objectionable people, how He loved those Who were out to get Him.

i need to hear more sermons on how what He suffered from us and how He responded.

i am not a prelapse, im more of a "hybrid" like arnold, who perhaps could give a summary of how he understands this issue if he hasnt already.

i also already knew the statement about our positions being open to investigation and have no problem with that. i suggest that those who read a lot of others positions on issues believe everyone else does also.

i suggest that some come to assumptions of others that may not be legitimate.

when we are "tired", or exhausted as some might be in a less cushy nation, hungry, or starving as some in a less cushy nation might be, or whatever else, is our "resistance" to sin extremely lowered?

isnt that basically what happened to Jesus in those three temptations in the desert? and the garden of gethsamanee? who willing wants to go through any kind of suffering? dont we all want to relieve it any way possible, hence the possibility of giving into temptation to relieve our suffering, or the perceived possiblity of suffering, in the wrong way.

the reverse could be said also, the more cushy our life the less resistance to sin we could have without the daily or moment-by-moment prayer, communion, bible study, submission, to God.