Okay, maybe "official view" is incorrect. However, I do agree with the conclusions in the two articles on Romans 5. Of course, I don't agree with the one on Jesus' human nature.

I'll take a look at the Romans 5 articles.

I know the discussion involved Waggoner and Jones' theology. There is an 1888 Message Study Committee which met with the BRI group for a number of years. Several of the members of the BRI group agreed with the MSC group, but those members were not present when they had an unannounced vote to publish the papers they did.

Returning to the Romans 5 articles, they were written from a pre-lapsarian vantage point. However, you hold to a post-lapsarian view. So for you to agree with Rodriquez on his view of Romans 5 is at the least logically inconsistent, because if you hold to his assumptions and interpretation of Romans 5, especially vs. 12-18, then if you are logically consistent, you should accept the pre-lapsarian position.

In order to understand a given subject, say for example Romans 5, one should understand the theological structure of the big picture, and how the given passage fits into that big picture. Rogriguez understands these things, and his view of Romans 5 is colored by his big picture perspective. His big picture perspective is completely different than yours, in areas related to justification, sancitification, perfection, and Christ's human nature. For you to agree with his position on Romans 5, yet disagree with him on the other issues, is not a logically viable alternative, because his view of Romans 5 is predicated on his view of these other issues, including principally his view of Christ's human nature.

Okay, let's open a new thread and study it closer. Sound good? I'll get it started on the SDA Church Concerns forum.

Ok. Thanks.