Let's not. Ellen White said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. What did Waggoner teach?



And vice versa. Of course. Or else she wouldn't have said they had a message from God.



She taught the same thing Jones and Waggoner did, of course. Nobody -- not a single soul -- had the slightest doubt that this was true in the time in which Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen White were preaching together. They, together, preached on the subject of the human nature of Christ as a part of the messages they presented.

Later on, when W. W. Prescott began preaching what Jones and Waggoner had been preaching in regards to Christ's human nature, she endorsed Prescott as well.

Obviously. It couldn't have been *before* the fall.


Just the opposite is true! The strength of the argument lies precisely here: If a being who was created perfect was incapable of keeping the law, it's because the law cannot be kept. This was his argument in heaven. The argument was "proven" with the fall of man.


No. Christ came to show that even fallen man can obey the law, if he returns to the pre-fall condition: connection with God. Thus, "Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement."

OK:

"All the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in his human flesh" (1895 sermons, p. 266).

The sermon link is no longer working, so I can't provide it, but you can find the sentence quoted through Google.

Perhaps people weren't paying attention to the details. Ellen White taught that Christ had no propensities to sin in His human nature, while J & W taught Christ had propensities to sin in His human nature.

Rosangela, I was happy to read you believe Jesus proved we can live without sinning the same as He did. However, it sounds like you believe we must first be restored to Adam's pre-fall sinless state before we can live without sinning. Did I misunderstand you?

They (J&W) were both very clear. For example, "The Consecrated Way to Perfection" explains things in great detail. "Christ and His Righteousness" is also quite detailed.

People understood the details regarding Christ's humanity, as can be seen by perusing our periodicals from this time.



They were in perfect agreement. You keep making assertions with no evidence. Please provide some evidence for your assertions.

They preached together on this subject. When EGW got questions about what they were preaching, she explained her answers using the same language and logic that J&W used. For example:



This is very similar to what both Waggoner and Jones wrote in the above mentioned books.

You disagree with this?



This is very similar to what I quoted at length from "The Consecrated Way to Perfection." Jones explained that Christ had sinful flesh, as we do, and Waggoner taught the same thing. Sinful flesh is flesh which has the tendencies to sin, isn't it?

However, Christ also said "no" to the temptations which arose from the flesh, and, by so doing, provided the means of victory for the rest of us who have sinful flesh.

Mike,

We must return to Adam's pre-fall state of connection with God, that is, of being partakers of the divine nature/moral image.

You're saying Satan's argument in heaven is that the law could not be kept? This is obviously false, as demonstrated by the millions of worlds. Who would believe such an argument?

Now once man had fallen, it could be argued that there was no hope for man, and no way that fallen man could keep the law. That's a reasonable argument.



Yes. There are many statements to this effect. Also, it makes sense. Can fallen man keep the law? Many people disagree regarding this, even today. Nobody has any question that man, as he was created, could keep the law. I doubt you could name even one Christian who believes that.



He could only do this by taking man's fallen nature. Otherwise He'd just be proving that unfallen man could keep the law.

???
Haven't I already done that?