Think of the hard drive on a computer which has files on them, corresponding to our memories. It's the hard drive that cannot be altered without altering our identity. Erasing files from it is a drastic alteration.



God is not promising to blot out our memories, but to blot out our sin! It is sin which will be eradicated, not our memories of it. We won't look at Christ's nail pierced hands and ask, "What happened?"

---



Then why don't you doubt that when He says we will remember certain things no more that it means nothing different for us than it means for us? Certainly if God can "plainly state" that He will remember our sins no more, yet you can doubt that He, to use your words, "really means what He says," then I should be able to doubt that when it "plainly states" that we will not be able to bring certain things to remembrance that it means something other than God's altering our memories ("memories" encompasses the whole of what we remember; deleting a memory change, or alters, our memories as a whole), and, in fact, means exactly the same thing that it means for God.



Do you think if God deleted certain things from His memory, that He could bring those memories back?

Sorry for the long delay in responding. Lots of stuff going on....



Given that the SOP sometimes uses "nature" to mean "character," can you name one postlapsarian who will admit that there is inspired evidence to support the idea that Jesus did not have the nature of Adam after the Fall?


True, if flesh was all there was to our heredity. But I don't believe that, since the SOP speaks of being born with propensities of disobedience. Since disobedience is a matter of charater, not body, that means that our heredity includes things other than flesh and bone.


I agree. Given that, do you agree that "flesh" as used in the Bible means more than just our physical attributes? Otherwise, the Bible is teaching that we must all be physically crucified.

Now, look at it from another angle. We are called to a transformation so drastic that it is illustrated as a death and resurrection. EGW calls it a transformation of "nature." However, I do not believe that we are called to a change of genetic material. Therefore, the "nature" spoken of by EGW is not equivalent to our genetic inheritance. Do you agree?


Here's an exception:

Here she is speaking clearly of the need to change our "sinful natures." Furthermore, she says it must be changed "into his similitude."

That tells us that:

• "Nature" is sometimes used to denote an aspect of humanity that must be changed.
• "Sinful nature" is sometimes used to denote an aspect of humanity that Jesus did not have, since we need to change in order to be like Him.
• Men "had lost the image and nature of God." (Was that true for Jesus?)
• Unless God requires genetic changes in us, "sinful nature" cannot be limited to genetic material.

What do you make of this?

The 144,000 are concerned that their defects of character will cause God's name to be reproached. The cannot bring any sins to confess to remembrance, because they don't have any; they've already confessed them.

The sins have gone beforehand to judgment and have been blotted out is speaking to their not having defects of character, not to their having faulty memories.

If by "nature" one means "character," I don't think any postlapsarian would have a problem with that. The difficulty comes in misunderstanding what a term means. IOW, there is inspired evidence to support the idea that Jesus didn't have the character of Adam after the Fall. No one would have a problem with this.



I agree with this. In dealing with the issue of Christ's humanity, I'm considering His genetic inheritance. That is, to say that Christ partook of our flesh and blood, or, similarly, that He took our sinful nature I understand to mean that His genetic inheritance was like ours. I understand EGW to teach this idea as well. For example:



I understand this to be dealing with genetic heredity, since if one considers heredity as including other things than genetic trait, her statement would not be true as written.



I saw this after I made my post (before you're bringing it up here), but hadn't seen it until just very recently. Do you know of any other examples of her using "sinful nature" in this way? I suppose I could just look. I'm familiar with her saying that Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature. There's also another statement where she says He took upon Him our sinful nature.

Personally I prefer to speak of "flesh" as opposed to "nature" precisely because of this ambiguity. At any rate, when EGW speaks of "sinful nature" in regards to Christ, one would have to suppose she is speaking in the same sense as "sinful flesh," since "sinful character" would hardly apply to Christ.

Regarding what EGW's view is, we have the testimony of her colleagues. For example:



The first paragraph is S. N. Haskell quoting from Ellen White in "The Desire of Ages." In the second paragraph Haskell explains, "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

Yes, He possesses the power to do whatever He wants to do. However, He has plainly stated that He will never do so. I believe Him.

Jesus inherited our sinful traits and tendencies - but He did not cultivate sinful traits of character by sinning. The same thing is true us when we're born again. That is, we are born again with sinful traits and tendencies, but we do not cultivate sinful traits of character by sinning. Of course, this is only true while we are abiding in Jesus, while we are walking in the Spirit and mind of the new mind, while we are partaking of the divine nature.

Certainly God had never stated plainly or otherwise that He will never delete certain things from His memory, as this is an absurd idea. However, God does say that He will not remember our sins any more. For some reason you do not understand this to mean what it "plainly states," to use your expression. You do not understand this expression to mean there is something faulty with God's memory, but that the expression means something else. I agree with this, but don't understand why you wouldn't apply the same logic to expressions involving human beings.

Anyway, let's continue analyzing your assertion that God could expunge things from His memory, and then bring them back. I'm interested in the bringing back part. Given He no longer remembers what happened, how would He bring these memories back?

Why is it that the discussions between you two are so funny? I think you both have a good sense of humor.

What about you? You don't think your discussions are amusing as well?

(I went to a friend of my wife's son's wedding this weekend and met another Rosangela. There were 4 people that came all the way from Brazil to attend the wedding of their friend's son. I was impressed.)