How could Jesus have failed?

That being the case, I don't see why people claim that Jesus could not have failed if He had Adam's Eden perfection. Neither angelic nor human perfection is a guarantee against sin.

Jesus had no doubts or misunderstandings regarding God's character. If Christ did not have Adam's fallen nature, how would He have failed?

It doesn't seem like your point is taking the context of what you quoted into consideration.

Is it even possible to fail if one does not have doubts or misunderstandings regarding God's character?

If anyone has no doubts or misunderstandings regarding God's character, he will not fail, regardless of the condition of his flesh. Don't you agree?

I agree with that statement. That's why I don't see the condition of Christ's to be so critical in terms of His failure or success.

Furthermore, was Adam created with doubts or misunderstandings regarding God's character? I don't think so. Yet, he somehow managed to fail anyway.

Again, the point is that neither angelic nor human perfection is a foolproof guard against sin. The condition of our flesh is not the determining factor; our complete and continuous congruence with God's character is.

Yes. Jesus is proof of this, because He did not have doubts or misunderstanding regarding God's character, and He could have failed).



No. Again, Christ disproves this idea. EGW says that Christ "could have sinned, He could have fallen."



Because that's what made it possible for Him to be tempted as we are; it made it possible for a temptation to be attractive to Him.



Clearly Adam did not understand God's character in any way that could be comparable to Christ. That's very easy to see. Just look at how he responded when Eve brought him the forbidden fruit to eat.



I wasn't speaking of our flesh at all. I was pointing out the necessity of the cross, in answer to what MM was asking. The discussion of our flesh just came up because of your comment.

Sin is a function of doubting and/or misunderstanding God, NOT fallen flesh. I thought you knew that well. Here's what you wrote elsewhere:


"How is it that sin holds its power over us? It's by deception."

If you are right on this point, and I believe you are, then Christ's flesh was not the key Satan needed for victory. His only hope to overthrow Jesus was to deceive Him about God's character. And his insinuations regarding the apparent contradiction between Christ's woeful condition in the wilderness and His claim to be the Son of God bear this out.

In short, as if I ever post anything short, victory/failure do not hinge on the sinlessness/sinfulness of human nature. Rather, victory or failure is determined by how well we know God. And we both agree that Jesus knew God very well. And if we know God well, we have eternal life, regardless of our flesh.

I agree that the key to Christ's victory was His mind, incorporating His faith, His will, His knowledge of the Father (not just mental, but as in conocer if you know Spanish) and so forth. Clearly since I believe He took our flesh, I could not be believe the key to His victory was the flesh.

I was responding to your point regarding the flesh that, given that Christ had a deep and correct understanding of God, how would have failed had He not taken our flesh? Indeed, I don't see how He could have been tempted in any real sense, not tempted as we are, in the sense that He had to do something difficult. Specifically, the most difficult part of temptation is the denial of self. How would this apply to Christ's case? What self would there have been to deny? How could His will have been different than His Father's?



I completely agree with this.

The corrollary to this, which I have been trying to get across for quite some time now, is that the key to Christ's failure was also His mind. Satan's attack must be focused on beclouding Christ's mind and, like he did with the perfect pair in Eden, get Jesus to doubt God's love, doubt God's word, and disobey God's command. Had any of this happened, it would not have happened in His flesh, but in His mind.

I will address your other comments next time.

And yes, I know enough Spanish to distinguish between conocer and saber.

I agree that the key to Christ's failure would have been in His mind as well. I just don't see how He could have failed had He taken sinless flesh. How would He have been tempted? (n such a way that He could give in to it)

You could ask, how could Adam have been tempted, since he had sinless flesh, but Adam didn't have the knowledge of God (conocer) that Jesus had.

He could have failed because flesh is not the key; the mind is. Even with sinless flesh, the mind is still the key. As the SOP quote that started this said, angelic perfection failed in Heaven and human perfection failed in Eden. Sinlessness is no guarantee against sinfulness. Only a close relationship with God can do that.


I wouldn't ask because flesh, sinless or sinful, neither causes nor prevents sin.


I will address that next time, along with your previous post.

The above quote was taken from a post in another topic, which reminded me of this topic, thus my response here, which is that this means that Christ couldn't fail, as God swore by Himself that Christ would succeed, meaning that Christ wouldn't, and thus, couldn't fail.

Here's the key to Christ's failure:
If Satan was to succeed in corrupting Jesus, it was not going to be through His flesh. The only way to corrupt Jesus was the same way that he corrupted Adam and Eve - get Him to reject God's word. And such rejection, whether by Jesus or Adam or us, only happens in the mind, not the flesh.


He went for almost 6 weeks with no food. Then Satan tempts Him to make bread. You don't think that's difficult? You think Adam could have done that, in his Eden state? Christ's body wasn't even in that state of perfection.

Yes, Jesus had to do something difficult. It would have been easier for Him to make that bread than it would be for me to get potato chips right now. And after going hungry for 40 days, that's as real a temptation as you would ever like to meet.


A month and a half of no food, and Satan suggests that He could turn the stones, which were abundant and accessible, into bread, which He could have easily done. Don't you think Jesus was hungry and wanted to eat? I think so.

But would that have been taking God at His word? Was God telling Him to eat at that time, in that way? No. So, Jesus had to deny Himself.

But note that Christ's self-denial was not on a point that was inherently sinful. His desire was to eat, which is not sin. However, His Father's will at that time was different from His. This time, as at Gethsemane, Jesus said in submission, "Not My will, but Thine be done."

Is that denying self? Absolutely! But it was not denying the sinful clamors of corrupt appetite. Rather, it was the denial of normal, God-given desires that would have been against God's will to gratify at that moment and in that way.

Lest you think that this is a matter of flesh, since this temptation was on the point of the lust of the flesh, consider the other temptations:

Pride of life, which leads to presumption - Satan tempted Jesus to exercise His faith that was not according to God's will. It's OK to exercise faith, but not that way. This happens in the mind, not the flesh.

Lust of the eyes - Satan tempted Jesus by showing Him the kingdoms of this world, and offering to exchange that for His suffering. Is it a sin to avoid suffering? No. But it would have been sin if He did it according to Satan's suggestion. This happens in the mind, not the flesh.

Note how this temptation was presented:
To make it tempting, Satan hid the traces of evil. In stark contrast is our bent TOWARD evil.

What I find is that Jesus was tempted by attacking His mind, not His flesh. The thrust of the temptations brought to bear upon Him was to receive "the words of Satan in the place of the words of God." And as long as He loved and trusted God, He could not fail, regardless of His flesh. So it may be with us.

"Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss." So let's not think that if Jesus had perfect flesh, He could not have failed. Inspired commentary tells us clearly that such perfection provides no safety. The only guarantee of safety that has ever been or ever will be, is in knowing God. And if Jesus was our example in anything, it is on this point.

I think we'll just have to disagree, Arnold.

In answer to the fasting question, no, I don't think it would have been difficult. I also don't see any connection between these theoretical temptations that Christ could have had had He had flesh like Adam's and our actual temptations.

I also don't see how this interpretation is even remotely possible considering our SDA history. That is, EGW endorsed Jones and Waggoner's teaching of justification by faith, of which the human nature of Christ was a linch pin. She also preached with them on this very subject, and defended what they were preaching, saying, "If Christ did not have our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are."

It seems very clear to me what happened. The church had one point of view. We started sending our teachers to non-SDA seminaries, because ours did not have a phd program, while we were having conversations with Evangelicals about whether or not SDAism was a cult. There was incentive to change our theology, so Bible Readings for the Home was pulled from the shelves, and EGW was reinterpreted.

That being said, I see a post-lapsarian Christology being widely misused. It's often used to prove a theory in regards to perfectionism, which I think turns many people off. When Jones started preaching about it in his 1895 sermons, he began by pointing out that Christ took our sinful nature in order to reveal God, which was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission, according to the SOP. Also emphasized was Christ's taking our flesh in order to have compassion upon us, having suffered in the flesh as we do. I don't see these points often emphasized, so I don't talk much about this. I may say something in passing, but I think in the last 7 years I've only preached on this maybe once, about 5 years ago. I talk about it here sometimes though.

For some reason the "preview reply" doesn't work on this computer, but fortunately the "Submit" does. So I don't get to edit my replies before sending them. Maybe I can edit it after the fact, if needed.

My primary point in this thread is that as long as Jesus loved and trusted God, He could not fail, regardless of His flesh. IOW, Satan's point of attack was His mind, not His body. Don't you agree with that?

A secondary point is that the way Jesus overcame Satan - by completely trusting and loving God - is exactly the same way we overcome Satan. The battle against sin is in the mind, not the body. This goes along with what you've said regarding deception about God's character as the reason we sin.

A tertiary point goes along with your last post that claims that "Christ took our sinful nature in order to reveal God." Obviously, the sinful nature itself does not reveal God, since God does not have a sinful nature. Yet, Jesus was the express image of God. Did Jesus reveal God by taking on a characteristic that God does not have? That would be silly. However, because God's nature is a matter of spirit, Jesus revealed God to us in spite of taking on a characteristic that God does not have.

Again, all this should tell us that the battle hinges on the mind, not the body. If after all this you still cannot agree with that, I'll have to go back to the drawing board.

I agree with you, Arnold, and I like the way you present this subject.

I think Satan was trying to use Jesus' flesh to reach His mind, and as long as He said "no," then He was fine (just like us).

I don't see how Christ could have been tempted in any meaningful way had He not taken our flesh. I think His overcoming in this case would have been trivial.



Agreed.



Right.



He revealed God to *us* by taking a characteristic that *we* have.



Yes, of course the battle hinges on the body. However, since the fall of Adam, we have baggage, which makes things more difficult. It's not a coincidence that only our world has lost people in it.

Arthur, any comment on the points I raised in post #100642?

You're no slouch yourself.

As a member of Larry Kirkpatrick's church, I'm sure you can imagine how this topic manages to creep into my thoughts on a regular basis. So I have considered this from many angles, and have many ways of looking at it.

Since Satan does not normally have direct access to our minds, he always goes through the various avenues of the flesh - our senses. That's what he did with Eve, that's what he did with Jesus, that's what he does to us today.


The same goes for the rest of us. And where is it that we say "No" to Satan? It happens in the mind, not the flesh.


Considering that half the unfallen angels of Heaven fell for it, and all of the unfallen humans in Eden fell for it, I don't see why you would consider it trivial. "Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss."

Why do you still insist that Christ's body could have caused Him to yield His mind?


I assume you meant "mind" in that sentence.

We do have baggage from Adam's fall, and the succession of falls since then. This baggage encompasses our entire being. When it comes to being more susceptible to sin, I fully believe that it is the baggage of the fallen mind that causes all the trouble. The baggage of the fallen body is inconsequential IF we have the mind of Christ.

Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that the body can still cause us to sin even if we had the mind of Christ? Given your stand on deception being the root of sin, I expect that you agree with my statement. Right?


My first comment is that my name is Arnold, not Arthur.

As for your post, I do have thoughts on it, but I hesitate to comment on them here because they're not really relevant to this thread. And you know how I hate mixing threads.

Now I understand why you've studied so much about this topic.

First of all, I said it would be trivial for Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ had a fully developed, and correct, knowledge of God. Angels and men did not have this. Thus they could be deceived. Satan wasn't likely to deceive Jesus Christ. The danger lay in the strength of the temptations themselves, strength which comes from fallen flesh.

Secondly, there were millions of worlds created with quadrillions or quintillions of beings. Of all these beings only a few billion have fallen. So considering the universe as a whole, only something like 0.00000001% of all created beings fell. So sin is extremely rare considering the universe as a whole. Made point didn't really have to do with this however. It's still interesting to point out, however, because it would have been very easy, in terms of numbers, for God to simply have set aside this world. But God is love, and love motivated Him to give all He had to save us, in spite of the quadrillions of other children He has.

Which of you, having 999,999,999 other sheep would not go and rescue the lost 1?



I didn't say this. I have emphasized that His temptations were as difficult as they were, to a large extent, because of his flesh.



As long as we have fallen flesh, we will be tempted. It is not inconsequential. By faith, we can overcome, as Christ did.



The body doesn't "cause" anyone to suffer. We are tempted through the flesh. The mind controls the will.



To me this (not being historically viable) is a huge flaw in the whole theory. I've brought this up to you many times, and a number of different threads, and don't recall your responding to it. It's easier to interpret Ellen White or Paul in various ways than to deal with the historical realities involved.

By the way, I think overall I agree more with your way of seeing things than LK. Christ's human nature is just one thing to consider. Accompanying theories may have a part to play in your rejecting the theory (e.g. perfectionism).

Just a quickie...


First, this thread is focused on the necessary factors to effect Christ's failure. Yes, it does touch on the debate on Christ's human nature, but it is not about that. It is very specifically about "how could Jesus have failed?"

On that front, I don't think there's any historical dissent about the fact that the battle was in the mind, as it is in our own experience. Essentially, unless Jesus chose to disbelieve God, which all happens in the mind, everything was fine.

As for the "whole theory" regarding Christ's human nature, I don't have a problem with historical viability there either. I'm guessing that you do not completely understand how I see the pieces of the "whole theory" fit together, or even what all the pieces are. For instance, you were claiming that since I am not a postlapsarian, I must necessarily be a prelapsarian.

If you see what I'm looking at, I expect you'll agree that the way I have the puzzle is historically viable. More importantly, it is consistent with the inspired commentary on the subject.


I do have a problem with using Christ's human nature as the motive force toward perfectionism. I think it is a waste of time at best, and logically inconsistent at worst.

I haven't met a postlapsarian who believed in perfection more strongly than I do. My beef lies in the motivation(s) for perfection. (Then, of course, there's the definition of sin.)

However, after long discussions with LK, we have come to believe that if you dig down really really deep, we are pretty much on the same page. We just choose to emphasize different things. My biggest problem with his emphasis is that it misleads his hearers, who sometimes have heretical beliefs on fundamental issues.

Anyway, more next time.

1.I know of people who have tried to assume a middle ground, being neither pre nor postlapsarian, but I only see two possibilities. Everybody agrees that Christ had a body subject to becoming tired and hungry, etc. The only point I'm aware of that this is disagreement upon, regarding Christ's human nature, is whether He could be tempted as we are (i.e. by our fallen natures). Another way to say it would be if Christ assumed the same nature that we do by heredity. Postlapsarians say Christ did, and prelasparians say He didn't.

There are people of both camps who believe that Christ have failed, or that he could not have.

2.Regarding being in harmony with inspired commentary, I don't see how that's possible, unless the idea one has regarding Christ's humanity agrees with what Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and Haskell taught, because inspired commentary endorses their view on this question.

3.Regarding motivation and emphasis, the SOP tells us that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, in order to set men right with Him. I agree with this. The emphasis and motivation should be on God's character. If we love God, we will keep His commandments. To love God, one must know Him as He is in truth, as He was revealed by His Son.

That's why I don't think you see what I'm looking at.


Consider this: Do we have the "mind of Christ" by heredity? Did Jesus have the "mind of Christ"? Did Adam have the "mind of Christ" before the Fall? Did Adam have the "mind of Christ" after the Fall?

Here's another way of looking at it: "Every one who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." {ST, July 23, 1902 par. 14} Are we born in that "condition of sinlessness"? Was Jesus born in that "condition of sinlessness"? Did He ever have that "condition of sinlessness"? Did Adam have that "condition of sinlessness" before the Fall? Did Adam have that "condition of sinlessness" after the Fall?

What are your answers?

When I list my answers to these questions, it is clear to me that Jesus was not like post-Fall Adam. And I can easily make a set of questions that will show that Jesus was not like pre-Fall Adam.


Did any of these people you mention ever teach that Jesus needed a "transformation of nature" {DA 172.1} like the rest of us do? Did any of them ever teach that Jesus had a fallen and corrupt mind, like Adam did after his fall?


Amen!

Lucifer did. And we know how that turned out.


If he failed to deceive Jesus, then he was lost. How could Jesus sin if He was not deceived about God?


A messed up body can only go so far. The crucial point is to avoid having a messed up mind.


You cannot count all the creatures there are. You can only count the ones that Satan tempted. After Adam and Eve fell, Satan was quarantined here. So, how many did he tempt before his success in Eden? I don't think it was quintillions.


The difficulty of a temptation lies in how much the mind wants to gratify it. Unless Christ's mind goes along with it, the temptation is powerless.


Yes, tempted. But as far as the possibility of falling into sin, the body is inconsequential. The mind is the key, for Jesus and us.


Again, if one has the mind of Christ, can he sin?

Lucifer did not know God like Jesus Christ did.



Also, no one would say that Lucifer's temptations were difficult. They were self-induced. Indeed, it was a very difficult fight for Lucifer to give in to the temptations which were of his own devisings. He almost didn't make it.

Jesus Christ's temptations, OTOH, like ours, were difficult. Why? Because He took our flesh.

Regarding how Jesus Christ would sin if not deceived, it would be precisely by giving into temptation. For example, He knew He had to go to the cross in order to save humanity. But, because of taking our fallen nature, it was not His desire, according to the flesh, to do so. He prayed 3 times for the cup to pass from Him. He prayed, "Not my will, but thine be done." Had He not taken our flesh, where would the struggle have come from? He would not have had a will which needed to be denied.



The flesh has an impact on the mind.



Unless the mind accedes to the temptation, the temptation is overcome, but that doesn't mean it is powerless. It can be very difficult to overcome.

Also this is sort of begging the question. For example, when Satan presented the Kingdoms of this world to Christ, the SOP tells us that Christ immediately turned His head. Why? So He wouldn't give into the temptation. But what interest could the Kingdoms of this world possibly have for Christ, not matter how long He stared at them, unless He took our flesh? Where would the strength of the temptation come from, if not the flesh?



Of course all the creatures in the universe should be counted to consider my point, which was that sin is extremely rare in the universe. To establish how rare, we would have to consider how many creatures there are, and how many of them sinned.



I think that's unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. I've had many of these conversations.



You'd have to define what you meant by the "mind of Christ."



This is mixing apples and oranges. A condition of sinlessness is not a condition that one is born with, but which one develops by overcoming. Christ developed a perfect character; He wasn't born with one. "Sinlessness" has to do with character, not with the flesh. It's not something one is born with.



This is like asking if a television set is created with a condition of sinlessness.



Yes; He developed a perfect character.



Adam was in the process of forming a character, and would have developed a perfect character, had he been faithful. He was living without sinning.



If you mean immediately after the fall, no. If you mean at the end of his life, perhaps.



But your questions do not have to do with the flesh. No one claims that Jesus was just like post-Fall Adam; just that His flesh was.



These would be questions that have to do with the flesh.

Tom,

First, Jesus Christ was not omniscient, right?

"With the issues of the conflict before Him, Christ's soul was filled with dread of separation from God. Satan told Him that if He became the surety for a sinful world, the separation would be eternal. He would be identified with Satan's kingdom, and would nevermore be one with God. And what was to be gained by this sacrifice? How hopeless appeared the guilt and ingratitude of men!" (DA 687).

"The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal" (DA 753).

Second, even knowing God well, He could have doubts as all of us can.

"While the load of the world's sin was upon Christ, doubts rent his soul in regard to his oneness with his Father." {BEcho, August 1, 1892 par. 10}

"Satan flattered himself that he could lead Christ to doubt the words spoken from heaven at His baptism. If he could tempt Him to question His sonship, and doubt the truth of the word spoken by His Father, he would gain a great victory. ... Satan hoped that he could insinuate doubts as to His Father's love, which would find a lodgment in the mind of Christ, and that under the force of despondency and extreme hunger He would exert His miraculous power in His own behalf and take Himself out of the hands of His heavenly Father. This was indeed a temptation to Christ." {Con 41.1}

We're getting into deep waters here! My opinion is that Jesus Christ, as God, was omniscient, but as man was not.



I'm sure Christ was tempted to doubt, and that taking our flesh made those temptations severe.

I guess if you're going to quote from EGW on the temptations in the wilderness, it would be good to add that she says what made Christ's temptations so difficult was His bearing our sins. That's another element. In addition to taking our flesh, He bore our sins as well.

R: Second, even knowing God well, He could have doubts as all of us can.

MM: Did Jesus "have" doubts? Or, was He tempted to doubt?

Was the life of Jesus "sinless"? Did jesus ever sin while in the flesh on this planet? I feel certain the answer is no. Out of all the "things" jesus did while on earth, He never sinned doing any of them.

It's not a sin to eat fish, nor to feed fish to the masses. It's never a sin to kill a fish and eat it, Jesus did it. It's not a sin to question God, for Jesus did it while nailed to the cross.

We can do anything that Jesus did while on this earth, and be CERTAIN that it's not a sin, for HE has SHOWN us the way to a perfect life on earth, hooray for Jesus!

Amen! Thanx, f2b.

It seems some doubts, as doubts about His Father’s love, would have led Him to sin; so He couldn’t harbor them. But I think He had certain doubts – for instance, He had doubts as to if He would rise from the dead.

By faith He believed, right? His inability to see through the portals of the tomb was temporary. Before He died He knew He had won and would rise again, right?

Note the reason why fallen man has opportunity for redemption, while Satan does not:
So if the SOP is right (of course it is) and you are right (I believe you are), then man (generally) knows God less than Satan, and Satan knows God less than Jesus. That makes Christ's condition in this very important aspect superior to that of even unfallen Adam. That's why I'm not postlapsarian.

--------------


Do you really think it was only fallen flesh that caused this difficulty for Jesus? Consider these.

Do you think that if unfallen Adam was given the choice to live a normal life or to die a painful and ignominious death, he would not have had a problem choosing the latter? Do you think unfallen flesh wanted to suffer any less than fallen flesh? I don't think so. I think the desire to avoid suffering is an innocent, God-given desire. It is not only fallen flesh that has such a desire. If anything, fallen flesh tends to lust after that which causes suffering.

More importantly, what did Jesus have to go through at the cross? More than physical suffering, He suffered the separation from God that sin causes.


This is what Jesus wanted to avoid - separation from God. In stark contrast is the desire of fallen humanity to run away from God. This great desire to avoid the cup was due, not to Christ's fallen flesh, but to His holy mind.

---------------------


My point in this thread is that the mind has a vastly greater impact on the flesh. If the mind is clean, the flesh's impact is limited.

-------------


Let's take a look at Romans 6:6 (click here to see it in multiple versions).

When we crucify the old man, and the new man is born (which comes with a new mind), the "body of sin" is "done away with." The NIV footnotes give the alternate reading of "rendered powerless." The NLT translates it "rendered powerless" and the YLT has it as "made useless." The margin in my NKJV bible says "made impotent."

So, yes fallen flesh might cause great difficulty, but when put in subjection to the mind of Christ, it is impotent.

----------------------


What was Jesus shown?
Do you think only fallen flesh can appreciate this? I can pretty much guarantee that unfallen Adam would have appreciated this more than fallen Arnold, who has a penchant for city life. While fallen men are attracted to evil, Satan hid every trace of evil in order to tempt Jesus. See the difference?

Where would the strength of the temptation come from, if not the flesh? It comes from the fact that sane men, whether fallen or unfallen, prefer "templed cities, marble palaces, fertile fields, and fruit-laden vineyards" over being nailed naked to a piece of wood while being separated from the one you love most. All else being equal, only one with a messed up mind would prefer the cross.

However, not all else was equal. Satan put strings on his offer. Jesus had to choose between gratifying His God-given desires or following God's will for that particular case. Therefore, He had to forego the fields and carry the cross.

-------------------


Sin is very rare in the untainted universe. But when you add in the factor of an external and very persuasive agent of temptation, such as Satan, it is much more common. Consider that half the angels fell for his lies, while living in God's house, in the perfection of holiness, living in perfect circumstances!

On the field of battle, Christ's circumstances were vastly inferior, and more difficult. Even if He had holy flesh, the battle would have been difficult. His fallen flesh, further weakened by 6 weeks of fasting, made it that much worse.

As a sidenote, let's take a short look at what Christ's fast should teach us.

To experience the strength of our debased appetite, Jesus had to fast for nearly a month and a half! That should tell us something about how fallen our flesh is in comparison to Christ's flesh.

------------------


You see only pre and post; I see another option. So it's clear that you don't see what I'm looking at.

----------------


Here's AT Jones in his 1895 GC sermon:
Now let's compare the verses he referred to (which you can see side by side by clicking here):
Consider the mind of Christ as described by Paul and Jones, do you think unfallen Adam had that, or fallen Adam, or both, or neither?

-------------------


Wait. You do not see any middle ground between prelapsarianism and postlapsarianism, yet you see something between sinlessness and sinfulness?

Either one is born with sin (sinful) or he lacks sin (sinless). There is no middle ground. If there was something in the universe that was binary, this is it.

Sinlessness is defined as the condition of lacking sin. If a newborn has to do something in order to come to the point of lacking sin, that must necessarily mean that he had sin to begin with. Isn't that obvious?

If one is without sin, then he is, by definition, sinless. For example, when Adam was created, he had no sin, and therefore, was in a condition of sinlessness.

------------------


Inspiration tells us of "the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." It wasn't something he was working toward; he was already there. So the question is, Did Jesus live in this condition that pre-Fall Adam did? Consider also that "every one who by faith obeys God's commandments" will reach this condition of sinlessness.

----------------


When you say Jesus had the nature of Adam "after the Fall" do you mean immediately after the Fall or at the end of his life?

-----------------


This is one reason why I can't be postlapsarian. Postlapsarianism seems to be obsessed with human nature in general, and the flesh aspect of that nature in particular. In contrast, I find inspiration telling us that the key to godliness is having the divine nature, and in the realm of human nature, the spiritual aspect is the most crucial.

The reason Jesus is superior to Adam in this very important aspect is because He is God. That Jesus is God is certainly no reason to reject being a postlapsarian!



Please be careful in your reading, or in your representation of what I've said (I'm not sure which is at fault here). I've never said that it was only fallen flesh that caused the difficulty for Jesus. I said that without fallen flesh Jesus would not have had the difficult He had, which is quite a different thing to assert.



Sure, there's no problem with this. This is all the more reason to accept that Christ took our flesh, as He would have no trouble controlling it with His mind.



Agreed. So why object to Christ's taking our flesh?

Btw, A point it seems to me missing from your theology, which Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott all emphasized (endorsed by EGW) is that the very reason *why* the flesh is impotent if we have the mind of Christ is precisely because Jesus Christ took it and triumphed over it.



Christ was the King of heaven. I have trouble seeing how the kingdoms of this world would hold an attraction to Him had He not taken our flesh.



This isn't clear at all. I could be seeing what you see and just not agree with it. I could think you're simply wrong. That's another option. Maybe what you see as another option isn't another option at all.

Regarding the mind of Christ, I asked you to define what it means, but you asked me a question instead. Please define what you think it means, and I'll answer your question as to whether unfallen Adam had it or any other questions you have about it.



When EGW uses the term "sinlessness" she is speaking of performance, not the flesh. She says that we (who have sinful flesh) can reach the level of sinlessness that Adam had. This is clearly not referring to the flesh.



Jesus lived without sinning. This is what a condition of sinlessness has to do with, not the flesh.

I'm not seeing why you would think that her stating "Consider also that "every one who by faith obeys God's commandments" will reach this condition of sinlessness." would be supportive of a prelapsarian position. It makes clear that Christ could take our sinful flesh and still have a condition of sinlessness. Isn't the whole objection against postlapsarianism is that it would degrade Christ?



This is referring to Adam's flesh, not his spiritual nature. One needs to be careful with the word "nature." Depending on the context, it can mean one's flesh or one's spiritual nature. One is hereditary, one is not. Christ received the same heredity that we have, including the inclinations of the flesh which are passed by heredity. But His spiritual nature was sinless.

Adam's nature, in terms of what postlapsarianism and prelapsarianism involves, did not change from the time he fell until the end of his life, just as ours doesn't. When one reaches the condition of sinlessness of which EGW refers, this speaks of a change in one's performance, what one thinks, speaks, and does, not one's hereditary constitution. We will still have, while in a condition of sinlessness (should be obtain such) the same temptations of the flesh common to humanity.



It seems to me you may not have a clear understanding as to what the issues are which differentiate between postlapsarianism and prelapsarianism. So you may (hopefully) be disagreeing with a phantom. We seem to agree on quite a lot (regarding Satan's using deception as his means of power, specifically deception regarding God's character, and the need for the truth about God's character to be known in order).

Let me ask a simple question. You've apparently read the 1895 sermons by A. T. Jones. Do you disagree with him? It seems to me possible that you might agree with him, and simply think that modern day postlapsarians are misapplying what he wrote. I'd like to pursue that possibility.

OTOH, if you disagree with Jones, I'd like to discuss what it is you disagree with. I think this approach might be a fruitful one.

Are you saying that only divinity can know God better than Satan? First, didn't Jesus lay aside His divine omniscience? Second, aren't we told that Jesus didn't have any power, such as a very intimate knowledge of God as a shield against sin, that is not also available to us? Therefore, and third, is this complete and correct knowledge not also possible for us non-divine and even fallen beings?


Christ's divinity is not a problem for me. However, such a key point where Jesus is not post-Fall is a good reason for me to stick to my position that it is misleading, if not misgided, to characterize Jesus as more similar to post-Fall Adam than pre-Fall. While I agree that Jesus was post-Fall in certain aspects of humanity, I firmly assert that He was pre-Fall in the most important aspects of humanity.

I've come across a few postlapsarians that agree with me on this, and I expect that you are one. A tell-tale sign of such a one is the sharp distinction between Christ's body/flesh and spirit/mind.

I'll get to the rest of your post as time permits. There are things in there that I definitely want to cover.

It seems like I did not understand what you meant in the post I was replying to. Here's what I was replying to (emphasis mine):
What I got from this, especially the last two sentences, is that you believe that if Jesus had not taken fallen flesh, there would have been no struggle, that His will would not have balked. Is this not what you meant? Please clarify.

As part of your clarification, I'd like to hear your answer to your own question. "Had He not taken our flesh, where would the struggle have come from?" And my follow-up: If there was a struggle even without fallen flesh, would it have been an easy struggle, or difficult?

??? How do you get this? I said Jesus knew God better than Satan did because He was God. How do infer from this that only divinity can know God better than Satan?



Is there some statement that says He did? I'm not aware of one.

We're entering deep waters here! I find the dual nature of Christ to be difficult to understand (I know I'm not alone in this), but my opinion is that He was God and man at the same time, and that, as God, He was omniscient, while as man, he wasn't. I believe this is still the case, although it's difficult (or impossible) to understand. That is, I believe Christ is omniscient now, today, even though He is a human being.



As a man, yes.



I think thorough all eternity we will be approaching Jesus' knowledge of the Father, but there will always be more to know. He will always no God better than we do.

I believe Christ had a will that had to be denied, a cross to bear, one could say, which He bore His whole life, and that this will arose from His flesh, as it does for us. So, even though we are born again, there is still a force from our flesh that tempts us to sin. I believe this applied to Christ as well.

I think the biggest contributing factors to Christ's temptations were:

a.He took our flesh.
b.He bore our sins in that flesh.

There could have been other factors too, such as being tired or hungry, or needing to struggle mentally to make sure He wasn't being deceived, or to make sure He was interpreting things correctly, etc. But I think a) and b) were, by far, what made things difficult for Him.



I don't know anyone who affirms this. Being a post-lapsarian does not mean one believes Christ was more similar to post-fall Adam than pre-fall Adam; it simply means that Christ too the flesh of fallen Adam. There is more to a man than flesh.



This seems moot to me.



I don't know any who wouldn't. That doesn't mean there aren't any, of course, I just don't know any.



OK. I'm really most interested in your response to what I wrote at the very end of the post.

Well, you said that the reason that Jesus was superior to unfallen Adam in this aspect - the aspect of knowing God - is because He is God. The implication is that if Jesus was not God, as the rest of us are not God, then He could not have been superior to unfallen Adam in this regard. If so, since Satan knew God better than Adam did, that must also necessarily mean that non-divine beings cannot be superior to Satan in this regard.

So let's just cut to the chase and answer this simple question: Is it possible for non-divine beings to know God better than Satan did?

That shows that He was not omniscient. He even had to learn what He Himself had taught. Then there was His first trip into the temple, when He was learning of His mission.

---------------------


He is glorified now. He wasn't glorified in the wilderness of temptation. He hadn't yet taken back the glory He had with the Father.

---------------------


So, is this intimate knowledge, which was superior to Adam's and Satan's, available to mere men?

---------------------


Yes, Jesus will always know God better than we do. The question is, will we surpass Satan's knowledge?

Of course in His humanity He was not omniscient.

That is, I believe Christ is omniscient now, today, even though He is a human being.



We will be glorified too. Receiving glorified bodies does not make us omniscient.



Ok. I'll state what I perceive you to be thinking, and what I think.

You:

a.When Christ was incarnate here on earth, something happened which affected His divinity.
b.When Christ was glorified, that thing was undone.

Me:
a.When Christ became a human being, He remained God, while becoming a man. He has two natures, one His own, divine, and one assumed, a human one.
b.When Christ was glorified, nothing changed on the divine side. Only His humanity changed.

These are deep waters, so I don't claim to have all the answers here by any means, but this is how I understand things. My thinking on this has been influenced by the following EGW statement:



I understand this to be saying that Christ had a dual nature. On His divine side, He could not die, but on His human side He could, and did, die. I believe the same principle applies to other attributes, such as omniscience and omnipotence. He did not use these attributes during His walk with us on earth, because He came to give us an example, to mention one thing, and certainly He could not have been our example had He used powers we do not have. However, I believe, He could have used these powers had He wanted to. There's an EGW statement which talks about how it was as difficult for Him to keep these powers under submission (that is, not use them, because He wasn't allowed to under the "rules" of the contest, to demonstrate the Satan was unjust in his accusations regarding God's having a law that humanity could not keep) which I think you are familiar with. I don't know it well enough to find and produce, but this would have the same idea that He had powers He could have used had He chosen to.

Regarding surpassing Satan's knowledge, we already know things about God that Satan never knew. His mercy and grace, for example.