Obviously, you have no idea what my position is, since I fully agree with Haskell's statement. You'd be better off speaking for others.

I could have sworn that I mentioned somewhere that Jesus had a fallen nature....

I could have sworn that I mentioned somewhere that if we are speaking of "nature" in the amoral postlapsarian sense, that Christ's was the same as ours....

You probably missed them.

I remember those statements - for most of those you were replying to me! - not just Tom.

Have only one question: what is the "amoral postlapsarian" view of human nature? - it's not an angle on sinful humanity I'm familiar with! I'm aware you support the 1980 voted belief, especially its published explanation; "fallen humanity" for you isn't our fallen nature since it's morally strong: is that Biblical? - for it isn't a founding SDA belief, though - 4u - it needn't be...but is it Biblical: it is a modern, alternative, as admitted last year, so how is it Adventist at all really, or worth anything?

Arnold, you refer to post-lapsarians as "you guys." Well, S. N. Haskell was one of "us guys."

I can't think of anything S. N. Haskell wrote on the subject that I would disagree with. I would say the same thing in regards to W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. Do you agree with these guys?

From everything you've written, you strike me as a typical pre-lapsarian. I apologize if I've misunderstood you, but does your position differ from Stephen Wallace, for example? Or Woodrow Whidden?

hello gentlemen.

for me, it seems to be how one reads those statements. when i read them by myself, i didnt read, or "see" what some seem to read/"see" them say.

im not sure how haskells quote is being read but the point he seems to be making is that the holy flesh people believed we can, somehow, on this side of eternity have "holy flesh" as well as a holy mind. hes just showing the reasoning leading up to the wrong conclusion.

i know what im trying to say but i dont know if i got that point across.

You will have to ask Tom, as I won't presume to explain a belief which I do not hold, or even understand. Read post #105007 in this thread for starters.


Well, that makes one of us, since I didn't know I support it! You're way ahead of me already, knowing more about my beliefs than I do.


"Moral perfection is required of all." I do believe that Jesus met that requirement from birth to death.

Whether or not that is a Biblical requirement is a long and tiresome debate that is a settled fact for those who believe EGW. That's why I regard as error any assertion that Jesus was morally imperfect in any way.


You are correct there. Here's an SDA belief that trumps most everything else:


At issue, as far as I'm concerned, is Christ's moral perfection. And closely tied to that is the moral perfection that is available to us through His. Is that Biblical? Many do not think so. But I believe that it is fundamental to the Gospel.

So if someone says Christ is immoral, I say that is wrong.

If someone wants to discuss something that has nothing to do with morality, I say that is irrelevant.

I don't know. I don't think those guys spent a whole lot of time wrestling over things that are "not a matter of morality," as modern postlapsarians do.

Anyway, please give a short definition of postlapsarian and prelapsarian, then I'll tell you if I agree with your assessment of me, Wallace, and Whidden. By my definition, and my understanding of what they teach, we are not prelapsarian. And Jones was not postlapsarian, as he made a very critical distinction between Jesus and post-fall Adam.

Christ's CHARACTER is the evidence of his "moral perfection"; "the mind of Christ", ie. the Holy Spirit in his spiritual, human life, is the basis of that character display. His fallen humanity was sinful, degraded, defiled, inclined to sin and captive to that inclination - depraved, but for the power of the Spirit through the "faith of Jesus" such that "the just requirements of the law were fulfilled" in him, and compatible with our spiritual set up to facilitate Rom 8:4 in our lives. Only by taking the sinful first Adam's place could he be Second Adam of our sinful race to redeem & restore us to God's glory in this life & forever more.

You don't think Jesus could produce a perfectly righteous character by taking a human nature defiled and infected by sin - he couldn't avoid corrupting it and himself had he taken exactly what we as Christians naturally & spiritually have - sinful flesh and the power of God?

Yes, you and eg. Whidden are neither, nor, for "sinful but without sin" is a hybrid which sadly is unknown ro the Bible! Jones famously insisted on Jesus' sinful flesh "bu don't drag his mind into it!" he said.

Why do you think those who defend & teach the original Adventist position on Christ's humanity don't study "matters of morality" in relation o it? - surely Tom's comment earlier hasn't confused you totally on our position?

Is that not part of our human nature - our character? If the character is removed from a man, is he still a man?

Is not morals a crucial element of what it means to be human? Can one be said to have "human nature" if his moral aspects are removed? Without the moral nature, what is man but a hairless beast?


Inclined to sin. Much can be said there, but I'll leave that for another time.

Let's look at your assertion that Christ's fallen humanity was depraved, as we all know fallen Adam's humanity was depraved.

From the 1828 Webster's dictionary, which was close enough to EGW's time to still have the same meaning for her:
Note the moral implications of depravity.

Some more. SOP this time:
Isn't selfishness a moral quality? Furthermore, was Jesus selfish, as the rest of depraved humanity is by nature? Did He have a nature that was evil and incapable of bringing forth that which is good?


Can a napkin permeated by water avoid being wet? What if it was very careful? What if it was more powerful?

You question suggests the belief that sin is a matter of one's actions. Though one can certainly sin through actions, sin runs much deeper than that. At its core, sin is a moral issue.

That is what Jesus came to solve. When man fell, his greatest need was not power, but propitiation. God's power does much, but it is of no consequence without His propitiation.

In my previous post I listed redemption ahead of restoration deliberately because we have to die to self & sin before we can harness the power of God for righteousness.

Did Jesus not die daily to self and his assumed, sinful nature, as he gave example for us to die daily?

I listed depraved because that is humanity without the power of God - captive to its own sinfulness: with the power of agape our sinfulness is defeated by choice. We sin because we're sinful, not because we're sinners! The Bible states Jesus took the nature of Abraham & David: the small fry of unintentional sins and that sort of issue is not our concern with Jesus, who was tempted ''in all points'' like we are, and his resounding victory over our sinfulness is ours for the asking.

The investigative judgement is all about getting into our lives every bit of his righteous experience that he wants us to have: Christian perfection, which he is! - which we are to reflect, the glory of God the Father.

Both our redemption & our restoration depend on the humanity of Christ being correct as on his divine Sonship being real rather than contrived by his incarnation.

Strange how we appear to want the same end of the Gospel but don't quite agree on the means! We'll see where this thread goes, eh.