Here is the link to the article on The Lower and Higher Natures by Kevin D Paulson that I would like us to examine and discuss here.

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-lhnature.php3

Here is how Kevin D Paulson introduces his article from that link:

Any thoughts on any of the above quoted material at the beginning of his article before we look at what's next?

is the paper designed to bring us closer to Christ or to defend his own beliefs?

Under "Practical Relevance" he writes:

im not going to say that is not true for someone. it is not true for me. what inspires me to be like Him is reading how much He loved....when i think about the miles He walked to reach people....there must be a reason the bible focuses on what He did for people instead of the temptations He resisted.

Jesus became like us so we can be like Him. I like how Kevin Paulson explains it:

The most important thing to me has been God's character. I agree, teresaq, that this should be the main emphasis (I say "I agree," but it looks like this is where you're coming from as well.)

It's interesting that in the 1895 GCB sermons by Jones, which you quoted from, he starts out by saying that Christ took our fallen nature in order to reveal God to us. I think too much emphasis is placed on being able to overcome as Christ overcame because He took a nature like ours, and not enough on the real issue of the Great Controversy, which is God's character.

I quoted the thing from Paulson in answer to your question regarding Paulson's motivation. I don't think he was looking simply to defend a point of view that he holds, but for the reasons he pointed out.

this seems to make sense to some of you so im not going to get into it. suffice it to say i wont read paulsons article, other than what i skimmed, nor like articles, because, for me, it confuses the issue and does not feed the soul.




you dont see that as just a bit confusing? should i become an alcoholic so the alcoholic can become like what i was before i became an alcoholic?

if Jesus became like me, how is He different? if He is like me than i am like Him.

teresaq, you read A. T. Jones articles, right? What do you think of them?

i have read very little of jones or waggoner. i am far more educated in egw, and the bible and neither one of those seem to take things to the level some writers do. i firmly believe that these sinful/sinless nature and "begottener" debates as well as the other myriad subjects we find to discuss-myself probably being the worst-is keeping us from what will save us.

i have been rereading jones 95 sermons here and there but have decided to stay mainly with what she specifically refers to:



i ask again, do we know what that message is? do we study it til we have it down? do we practice it?

Seems to me this thought is borne out in the following Scriptures:

Romans
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 Corinthians
5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews
2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Hebrews
4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

1 John
3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

PS - Ellen agrees with the passages posted above:

Christ lived the law of God in humanity, and so may man do if he will by faith take hold on the strong and mighty One for strength. {TM 282.3}

Christ came to live the law in His human character in just that way in which all may live the law in human nature if they will do as Christ was doing. {3SM 129.4}

"The prince of this world cometh," said Jesus, "and hath nothing in me." There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan's sophistry. He did not consent to sin. Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So may it be with us. Christ's humanity was united with divinity; He was fitted for the conflict by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. {RC 308.6}

God was manifested in Him that He might be manifested in them. Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was. {DA 664.4}

sorry mm. i was reading it in one light when you meant it in another.

this is the light you meant it in i believe.

She mostly refers to their message mostly as "justification by faith." I think the 1895 sermons are very good in their discussions of Christ's human nature.

I think the most pressing matter to study is God's character. I've found a number of people to be helpful on this subject. I'll mention a few.

First of all, I like what Ellen White wrote, especially in "The Desire of Ages." The first chapter is a wonder, truly a thing of beauty. I know of no better explanation of the Plan of Salvation than that chapter. I've also learned a lot from the chapter "It Is Finished." But it's a great book in general.

The Great Controversy is another book which has had a big influence on me.

Probably third would be "Christ's Object Lessons."

George Fifield has been a big help to me. He wrote a book called "God Is Love," which has been republished. If you're interested in how you can get it, I can tell you how. Here's a taste: http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/forum/v...ow=5&page=1

Among modern day writers, Ty Gibson has really helped me a lot. Also Greg Boyd has some nice ideas, in particular his book, "Is God to Blame?" The exciting thing about Boyd is that he is not an SDA. Here's something Boyd wrote:



From the SOP:

I agree with you, Teresa.....it is confusing...and much safer to stick with the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy! I believe Paulson with many others brings Jesus down to the unconverted man's level....

What Paulson is presenting was the Spirit of Prophecy. He was explaining some misunderstandings that people have in regards to certain phrases used there.

But, Tammy and Teresa: is it not precisely the aim of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to reach man at his naturally unconverted level??? Are we not each the unconverted people he needs, yea wants, to lift up with his righteousness - formed using our very own sinful flesh and the power of God?

Is Jesus' humanity not precisely that of Christians, who are saved from death and are yet being saved by Christ's character being imparted piece by piece as we daily exercise justification by faith?

That said, intellectual confusion began before Paulson and his "ilk" had to start defending the recognised church teaching of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. As proved by "Touched With Our Feelings" (available from the ABC), our church publications were unanimous that Christ took our sinful, fallen humanity and made it righteous by his life of faith, until...

The first confusing publication was the 1949 edition of Bible Readings for the Home Circle, which deleted the comment that Jesus took himself sinful human nature - allowing confusion to start as to what kind of human nature our Saviour did in fact take.

The book by Thomas Davis, Associate Editor of the Review alongside Herbert Douglass, under Kenneth Woods, from 1966-1983, on this subject said that Jesus' humanity was exactly like a Christian's humanity - spiritually connected to God by the Holy Spirit: something pioneered by Jesus. This means that Jesus is precisely unlike the unconverted man, since Christians are ideally not unconverted, but experientially, i.e. inwardly from mind to character, righteous by faith...BUT only because Jesus sorted out the higher and lower natures of sinful humanity (SOP points, hence this thread), producing his own perfect righteousness, and, having saved mankind from the eternal death due sin itself - let alone our actions, thus consecrating the path to Christian perfection (A T Jones' title of his commentary on Hebrews) for us to walk.

The idea that Jesus assumed the "form and nature" of Adam before the Fall is in direct contradiction to what Ellen wrote about Jesus' human form and nature. Listen:

He sent His Son into the world, that through His taking the human form and nature, humanity and divinity combined in Him would elevate man in the scale of moral value with God. {1SM 340.3}

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan's temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted. {4aSG 115.3}

Colin, I find it interesting that Ellen makes it clear that the righteous traits of character Jesus developed throughout His life on earth was developed with same form and nature all of us inherited at birth and in the same way born again believers develop righteous traits of character. Of course, like sunlight outshines candlelight, Jesus achieved a level of maturation that none of us will be able to equal throughout eternity.

so Jesus became as bad as us, but we cant be as good as He "became"?

Teresaq, the difference between sunlight and candlelight is not measured in terms of bad. Neither does it have anything to do with shades of darkness. Instead, it has to do with depth and degree of righteousness.

"Even the most perfect Christian may increase continually in the knowledge and love of God. (ML 249) "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Through obedience comes sanctification of body, soul, and spirit. This sanctification is a progressive work, and an advance from one stage of perfection to another. {ML 250.4} This “work of progression will not cease, but will continue throughout eternity.” (HP 186)

Does this sound like the truth?

We can't say, Teresa: except that we have the operative word "reflect". Jesus works with us and we with him so that and until we reflect his character for the world to see. Perfect Christlikeness is God's ideal for children, which is higher than the highest human thought can reach.

Equally, reflecting Christlikeness is being fitted for heaven, so Christ's perfection is 'beyond' us since we receive him and don't claim equality with him: this gospel glory of perfect Godliness is the 'supreme' miracle of God's promises, not any 'better than' others round us experience or as good as Jesus comparison.

Can God achieve the impossible and effect actual Christlikeness in us for one generation of believers? We believe so, and that's to God the Father's glory, through Jesus Christ.

I found that the article, though claiming to have easily settle some controversial issues, does not address certain important angles. When I brought them up with KP, he said, essentially, that I will only get more confused if I continue to study the matter in too much detail. But the way I see it, if his thesis can only be understood and accepted if one ignores the details, then it is not built on a solid foundation.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the article is that KP seems to believe that our greatest struggles against sin centers around the lower nature. But it is a damaged spirit/character that is our worst problem.

In any case, here's something to consider:
1) Where does the character reside, in the higher or lower nature?
2) In the nature where character resides, was Jesus like the unregenerate sinner with an unrenewed heart?
3a) If He was, then why do we spend any effort in effecting the sinner's regeneration? If he's already like Jesus, leave him alone because he's doing fine.
3b) If He was not, then of what spiritual value is it to wrestle over the aspects in which He was like the sinner, if those aspects do not include the character, which is the sinner's biggest, if not only, problem?

Are "character" and "nature" equivalent in this quote?

Were you speaking to him in person, or was this a written exchange? I'd be interested in what he actually wrote, if you could produce that.

Regarding the character/nature question, character is not hereditary whereas nature, in the sense of flesh, is. Christ's character was different than man's because He never sinned, not because His heredity was different than ours.

I think Paulson did fine in handling the linguistic aspect of the question, but he ignored the historical side, which is an even stronger argument (although maybe he deals with this elsewhere; I don't know). Ellen White's contemporaries seemed to have no difficulty understanding what she believed. It seems odd that a century later that others who didn't know her would come up with theories which contradict what those who actually worked with her, and preached with her on this very subject, believed (regarding her beliefs).

That is pretty much what many believe. They want to bring Jesus down to the unconverted mans level, thinking that by doing that, that that in some way gives the unconverted man hope.

That would be like if a man is sitting in a bar, completely drunk....and you wanted to help the man, but you were told you could not help him unless you were a recovered alcoholic...then you could help him - That only someone who has been as low as he is, can reach him. That is nonsense!

Kevin Paulson is actually an inactive member here, therefore, somebody may wish to contact him and alert him by linking him to this topic.

i havent been able to go through all the writings, yet, of the pioneers regarding the human nature of Christ. would you have some handy? besides jones and/or waggoners statements i mean.

i got the impression from somewhere that post-laps believed we could be cleansed of all sin. this isnt true?

Honestly Teresa, I don't really understand the definitions of post and prelaps... I understand New Theology and "Fordism"...but I don't understand the other two....sorry...

This brought to my mind the following:



Regarding statements by other postlapsarians besides EGW, Jones or Waggoner, here's a couple:

i meant the original pioneers of about the first 20-30 years.

It was spoken of very little then. I believe J. H. Waggoner may have written some regarding it. Ellen White has a few statements.

i was having a hard time finding references to the early pioneers understanding of the human nature of Christ agreeing with jones, which is why i asked. that would make it definitely not a historic position, but more of a jones position which some others believed true. which i believe prompted ellen whites statements and warnings regarding Christs human nature.

It was correspondence on the LGT list. I have it somewhere, but the LGT list rules prevent me from sending you his posts. But you can join at http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lgtlist and check out the archives yourself.

Anyway, it wasn't a quick and easy discussion, which is a rarity on this topic. We beat the bush's immediate vicinity quite thoroughly before he realized that he wanted no part in the degree of detail I was looking at.

As a result, I don't take his writings as definitive in any way except that it is definitely his opinion based on whatever pieces of evidence he chose to look at in his research. So when he says things like, "Inspiration never teaches...." I give it as much weight as his attention to detail warrants.


This applies to 3SM 129.4? That would mean that in the first half of her sentence, she was talking about Christ living the law in His non-hereditary aspects, then switches in mid-sentence to us living the law in our hereditary aspects?

Re: character - Does the newborn son of an unregenerate sinner have a perfect moral character, imperfect moral character, or no moral character, keeping in mind that the thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character?

i would come to the conclusion that they were the same left to myself.

Arnold, It's difficult to believe that he would say if you looked at things in too much detail you would become confused. Perhaps you understood his intent, which I know you've done with me. Citing the part of the post where he says what you claimed seems like it would be OK. If you think not, you could PM it to me.



If someone claims "Inspiration never teaches," the way to disprove this is by citing a counter example.

Regarding character/nature, I believe it's similar to the one which goes something like "Just what He was in human nature, you may be by faith in Him."

Regarding character, character is developed, so a newborn would have very little, if any, character.

That EGW was a post-lapsarian is easily seen in that all SDA's of her time were post-lapsarians, she endorsed post-lapsarian sermons and teachers, worked to resolve controversies (e.g. the Holy Flesh teaching) by post-lapsarian arguments, and was understood by her contemporaries as being post-lapsarian.

I don't think they spoke of it, so you'd have difficulty finding statements that agreed with anyone.



The only expressed position of the church for almost 100 years was the post-lapsarian position. Ellen White had some statements regarding it. As I mentioned, I believed J. H. Waggoner may have written some things. Maybe some others as well. I know there weren't very many statements until Jones and Waggoner started talking about it in the late 1880's. Then Ellen White wrote many more statements. Also W. W. Prescott, George Fifield, and Stephen Haskel, to name three that come quickly to mind. E. J. Hibbard is another one. J. E. Evans and J. H. Durland are a couple of others.



No, these warning were not in response to Jones' teachings, which is easy to ascertain. Ellen White preached side by said with Jones and Waggoner in 1890 and wrote the following:



So she was definitely on board with what Jones and Waggoner taught. She also endorsed a specific sermon of W. W. Prescott's which was called "The Word Made Flesh," which expressed the same ideas, in pretty much the same language, that Jones presented.

The warnings Ellen White wrote were in response to a letter a little known W.L.H. Baker who was working in the Tasmanian mission field. Since no one knows what Baker was teaching, it's difficult to interpret Ellen White's private letter. This was written either in the end of 1895 or the beginning of 1896, which was the same time period she endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon, so if Jones' idea was in error (in which case Prescott's also was), she would surely have let him know, as opposed to endorsing his sermon (calling it truth "separated from error").

but this is the very point i am making. when i read this i read that Jesus became man, took on human nature. when you read it, i believe you are saying you see it as saying "fallen" human nature. i see nowhere where "fallen" is even implied, much less mentioned and sense i have read it in its context before, i understood her saying that Jesus became man, not just appearing to become man.

She was preaching with Jones and Waggoner. The "same nature as man" is in reference to what Jones and Waggoner preached. Those who heard the message responded, "If Christ had taken our fallen nature, He would have fallen under the same temptations we fall under." Many have this same idea today.

That "Christ could not have the same nature of man" does not mean simply "human nature" is easily seen not to be a viable possibility. No one would make the argument "Christ could not have had human nature (i.e. simply human nature, like unfallen Adam, as opposed to fallen human nature), because if He did, He would have fallen under the same temptations we do."

So to understand "human nature" as anything other than "fallen human nature" not only ignores the historical reality of the statement (Jones and Waggoner's preaching regarding Christ's taking human nature) but would force those to whom Ellen White was responding to make an argument no one would make.

I hope this isn't against the rules (too much).

"I urge you strongly to resist the inclination to indulge in such in-depth specificity, and to reserve such queries for when we sit together with our Lord under the tree of life."

There are others, but I'm not good with the search function of gmail.

Here's another one I found: Again, it seems, you are yielding to the propensity (perhaps even an evil one!) to get Talmudic on us, with all your hairsplitting and technicalities!

Talmudic, eh???...

Sounds like KP is taking Sister White's advice not to delve deeper into justification and sanctification than is necessary for our salvation. You and he appear to differ on what is enough depth, but he is standing firm, having studied out Adventism and confronted non-Adventist views as he has, including Des Ford, not so(?).

Isn't the reality of sinful humanity - for us and for Jesus, principly the spiritual victory of mind over matter, following the Spirit of Jesus rather than the inclination of the flesh to sin, thus righteous by faith in practice? Christ pioneered that victory of faith over sinful flesh and its assist to every temptation, and that's it. What more should we distinguish on matters of sin, righteousness and faith?

the quote you posted that i got this from is from 1890.



the 1889 sermons i have by jones do not touch on Christs human nature as they do by the 1895 gc, so im not sure how you come to your conclusions.

1.I pointed out the following:



So just from the question they were raising, it's easy to see that "Christ could not have the same nature of man" means "Christ could not have taken the fallen nature of man." Else the argument doesn't make sense. They weren't arguing that Christ wasn't human, because if He were human, He would have fallen under the same temptation that humans do, but that Christ did not take our fallen human nature, because had He done so, He would have fallen under similar temptations. This latter is an argument people still make. Nobody makes the other argument.

2.She was preaching with both Jones and Waggoner. Waggoner wrote the following in 1889:



http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/righteou...st-in-the-flesh has more of this if interested.

According to Froom, Waggoner's wife took notes of his 1888 talks, and these talks were printed in Signs of the Times articles, which were later compiled in the book "Christ Our Righteousness" (which was later renamed "Christ And His Righteousness"). The 1888 message of righteousness by faith itself included Christ's human nature.

Thanks Arnold. Colin expressed my thoughts.

thanks. i know the history of waggoners 88 book. i may at some point in time come to some of your conclusions, but at this point in time i read ellen white differently than you do. i understand that it does not make sense to you that she would not mean "fallen" human nature.

im not remembering the statement off-hand where there were some who believed Christ only appeared to have human nature, or something to that effect, and that is how i have read her comments. in the context i dont see your point but that she is making another point.

since ellen white said the churchs doctrines could be questioned and studied i would assume that would also apply to jones and waggoners beliefs on certain points. but i cant believe something i really dont see.

nor can you. you honestly see your points. i honestly read them differently.

i think ill save the friendship, at the moment, and let it go. at the moment, meaning i may jump in somewhere down the line for some reason.

She herself wrote that Christ did not have make believe human nature, but had a nature like ours (that is, fallen). No one doesn't think Christ was a human being (to have a human nature is synonymous with being a human being).



It's very easy to see. Letters were coming to her regarding Christ's human nature. Why? Because this is what Jones and Waggoner were preaching; they preached that Christ took our fallen nature. Ellen White said the same thing. For example:



So she speaks of fallen nature as human nature. In the letters she received, people had questions regarding what Jones and Waggoner taught, which is that Christ our human nature. Not a human nature (no one would have any difficulties with this) but our human nature. Why? Because if He had our human nature (i.e. fallen) He would have fallen under the same temptations we do. Now these questions are easy to understand, and are questions that many today have.

I don't understand your idea, that what she meant was that people were questioning whether or not Christ had a human nature, because if He did (i.e. He were human) He would fall under similar temptations as we do. Everyone believes Christ was human, and that He was tempted as a human being.

Please take into account that this quote is in the context of what Jones and Waggoner would have been preaching.

Anyway, this is just one thing. There's lots of evidence that EGW was post-lapsarian. For example, just to name one thing, she endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon, "The Word Made Flesh," calling it truth "separated from error," whose subject matter was that Christ had the same sinful flesh that we have.

He must be right. He is, after all, THE Kevin Paulson. What was I thinking.....

Others have said as much to me. They said that Jesus loves us and will not let anyone slip out of His hands, so I shouldn't sweat over all this digging I like to do. Just let go and let God. Maybe they were right also.

But, incorrigible me, I like to know, for myself, in Whom I believe.


Yes, spiritual victory of mind over matter. In which nature does that happen, higher or lower? Where does sin happen, in the higher or lower nature? In what sense, according to KP, was Jesus like us, the higher or lower nature?

I thought you were saying that, in that quote, she was using "character" and "nature" differently. This time, you seem to be saying that Christ's "human nature" corresponds to His "human character" in the quote. You've lost me. Are they or are they not equivalent in the quote?


A newborn would have very little, if any, thoughts and feelings. OK. Most postlapsarians I've come across say that.

Any takers?

I would say character is a function of the mind (higher nature).



We are to have the mind of Christ. As A. T. Jones said, He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not the likeness of sinful mind. Jesus' flesh was like that of the unregenerate sinner (or regenerate sinner, for that matter), but His mind was "the mind of Christ." Our minds are to be like His, by partaking of the divine nature by faith.



I guess this is rhetorical?



Righteousness is by faith. Character is formed when one resists the temptations of the flesh by faith. A. T. Jones spoke of how Satan tries to control the mind through the flesh, whereas Christ endeavors to control the flesh through the mind.

While the character is not included in the flesh, it is impacted by the flesh, so this is why there is spiritual value in understanding how temptation works and how it is overcome.

One question for you in return. Do you agree that Ellen White's contemporaries perceived her views as postlapsarian?

I was explaining what I thought the quote meant, not the individual words. I already dealt with the individual words in my original comment to the quote, which was that she was using the words differently in that particular quote.

As I've often pointed out, the word "nature" can mean many different things. The context must be considered.



Ok, a couple of questions for you. First of all, do you disagree that character is developed? Second, do you think that EGW was a postlapsarian? If not, why not? (I should have asked this a long time ago!)

speaking for myself, i would have to read each and every writer that quoted from her regarding Christs nature, otherwise, i could not say one way or the other. i could do that, but im not sure that would be a constructive use of time given all that i should be studying and learning.

on the other hand, many have used ellen whites writings to justify their views believing that was what she said, including kellogg and his justification of pantheism.

so, it would seem we could end up reading into her writings what we want to. i would rather just read them and let the Lord convict me as He sees fit.

I think there are only two. A. T. Jones and S. N. Haskell. I've already quoted one. The other I think you've already read, since you seem familiar with A. T. Jones 1895 sermons.



I think you can say, because you've already read the evidence you were interested in.



I think you've already done so.



I'm not following you here. What I asked was if Ellen White's contemporaries viewed her to be a postlapsarian. This would be analogous to her contemporaries viewing her as a pantheist.



Sure this is possible, but this isn't what I asked. What I asked is if Ellen White's contemporaries viewed her to be a postlapsarian.

If her contemporaries and readers viewed her to be a postlapsarian, and she knew this (which she no doubt did), then it would behoove her to set the record straight, if she understood she was being perceived erroneously. She did this sort of thing all the time. For example, in regards to the pantheism that you mentioned, she set the record straight. She regularly did this.



Ellen White's writings suggest that we use common sense, sound arguments, and that we weigh evidence. The evidence is that her contemporaries viewed her to be postlapsarian, and that she was are of that fact.

The evidence is overwhelming that she was postlapsarian. She preached side by side with postlapsarians, defended their positions, endorsed specifically the sermons of postlapsarians, and used their language, saying, for example, that Christ took our sinful nature, and the nature of Adam the transgressor.

ill have to check but i thought you said there were more. i only have the little bit you posted from haskell. i havent been able to find the whole article, then do the research to see if ellen white supported his use of her writings or not. many used her quotes in support of their positions. ive read her comments about that. again, as i said before i would have research jones 95 sermons to see if he quoted from her regarding Christs human nature, and etc.



huh?! i will check tomorrow, but i could swear you named several "contempories" of ellen white that saw her as postlapsarian.



huh?! what do you base this on? this is getting real close to breaking that 9th commandment sdas appear to absolutely hate.


kellogg used ellen white quotes in his living temple believing they supported his pantheism. people on both sides of the daily use her quotes, ad nauseum.



ill let this one slide.




are you saying you could read her readers minds, back then and now? the contemporaries you mention are after the original pioneers and i dont know if it was "universal". and as ive said we all read her differently. there is no sense, nor use, trying to hammer me into believing what you believe. my parents couldnt do it and no one else has succeeded in my 58 years. get a clue already. i will think, and learn, and study and fall for, and by, meself.


and come to your conclusions.


so you say.

No, I didn't. I only mentioned Haskell's quoting here in the Review and Herald.



Haskell was working with Ellen White in reference to the Holy Flesh movement. He went to see what was going on, and reported back to her. He said:



A week later he wrote what I quoted earlier, where he read from the Desire of Ages and explained what that meant. He was working in concert with Ellen White. He wasn't making claims about her writings that she wasn't aware of, nor was he working on his own.

There were a number of people who worked with her on this issue. Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review, which later became the basis for his article in "A Consecrated Way." Waggoner preached on the subject at the General Conference Session which Ellen White attended.

Please note that the argument of the Holy Flesh movement was the following:

a.Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
b.We must obtain this nature to overcome as He did.

Now the prelapsarian argument against this would be to agree with a. but to deny b. However, what the SDAs did was to attack this heresy at its root, which is a. Ellen White supported this, saying, "There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric."



I said I thought there were only two who quoted from her in establishing that Christ assumed our fallen nature. That is, there are only two of which we have records of doing this. That she was postlapsarian was common knowledge. I wasn't saying only two of her colleagues knew that.



This isn't at all similar to Haskell's case. Haskell went to Indiana at Ellen White's request, and was working in concert with her. He reported to her of develops. She was in step with what Haskell was doing.



Get a clue already?

This is a public forum, Teresa. The purpose of the threads is to discuss issues, to share viewpoints, to try to persuade others based on evidence, and to learn from others as they do the same.

I don't understand your attitude here. Your first comment on this thread was to ask if the article was written to defend his beliefs, and then you said:



This thread is about an article of Paulson's. If you're not going to read the article, why are you wanting to participate in the thread? If you are going to be participate in the thread, let's do so with an open mind, in a kind way, discussing the evidence. I don't see what your entire paragraph here has anything whatsoever to do with the paragraph you responded to. Here is the paragraph I wrote:



No, I'm not reading their mind. I'm considering the evidence.

Ellen White preached side by side with Jones and Waggoner. They traveled together, spending many hours together. It's inconceivable that they didn't know each other's view on the subject of Christ's human nature, when this played such a prominent part in their preaching. Ellen White was present at the 1888 GC session in Minneapolis when Waggoner presented the studies which would later become "Christ Our Righteousness" (later renamed "Christ and His Righteousness").

Ellen White read W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh" and endorsed it as truth "separated from error." This sermon was about how Christ had our sinful flesh.

Ellen White worked with S. N. Haskell, as mentioned above, to counteract the Holy Flesh movement. S. N. Haskell quoted from "The Desire of Ages" with her knowledge, interpreting her writings as a postlapsarian.

All of this is evidence that Ellen White's contemporaries knew her thinking was postlapsarian.



Here's another of these comments. What did I do to deserve these types of comments teresaq? No, not my conclusions. My conclusions are not of interest. The truth is.



Again! No, not so I say. I'm not just saying stuff but presenting evidence.

If you disagree with the arguments or presentation of evidence, please present some counter argument or present evidence of your own, but can't we set aside these personal types of comments?

This will probably be my last post here for a while, until I finish the Steps to Christ series I'm working on.


Character is developed. But I believe that pre-Fall Adam, in his perfection, had the ability to develop character. Character development is part of God's perfect plan, and does not need sin to become possible.


In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in aspects that have nothing to do with morality? She was. But then, I don't know anyone outside Muncie who believes otherwise.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having a sinful mind? She was not. But then, neither was Jones.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having an evil nature? She was not.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having had selfishness take the place of love? She was not.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in having evil in His heart? She was not.

In the sense that Jesus was like fallen Adam in needing external righteousness imputed to Him? She was not.

It all depends on how fully you want to take "post-lapse" when applying it to Jesus. I have yet to see a single "postlapsarian" apply all that "post-lapse" denotes to Jesus.

Do you remember my mathematical proof that the strength of Christ's external temptations constituted at least 99% of His total? That was not true for fallen Adam.

I'm sorry for the confusion you have in regards to "postlapsarian."

"Postlapsarian" in regards to Christology refers to the idea that Christ took the human nature of Adam after the fall. Another way of expressing this is that Christ had the flesh of Adam after the fall. This is also expressed by terms such as "sinful nature" or "fallen nature". This "nature" or "flesh" refers to that which can be passed by heredity. It refers to a nature which, apart from divine help, is powerless to overcome sin.

It has nothing to do with having an "evil heart" nor "evil nature" nor "selfishness in the place of love" nor "sinful mind." I know of no one who has expressed these ideas. Certainly no well know postlapsarian of Ellen White's time expressed any of these ideas. I really don't know why you mentioned them.

Let's consider a statement from a postlapsarian:



Here's another statement:



Do you think Ellen White agreed with these statements?

these seem to be very good clarifiers to keep in mind, when considering a post-lapse position.

Compare EGW's description of the "human nature of Adam after the fall":
But, when you speak of Jesus having "fallen human nature," you are not speaking about that which EGW was speaking about here. In short, you say "human nature" but are really thinking about a very narrow slice of what "human nature" constitutes in its fullness. So, those like me who have read little of the various commentators, but only have a knowledge of these terms as the Bible and SOP use them, often get confused with modern postlapsarian terminology, because if you read the SOP to learn from it rather than to use it to prove a personal position, we find that EGW describes fallen human nature in ways that obviously do not apply to Jesus.


"Postlapsarian" did not exist in the days of EGW, afaik. So, it is inadvisable to be dogmatic about what the term meant to the Pioneers and whether or not EGW was one.

Have you never heard a prominent postlapsarian say that Jesus "had a tiger in His pants"?

Have you never heard any postlapsarian say that Jesus was tempted by the same sources that we are, knowing that we are tempted by the evil of our own hearts?

Have you never heard any postlapsarian that Jesus had the same selfishness that the rest of us naturally have, but the difference is that He didn't act upon it? BTW, is selfishness inherently evil, or only if you act on it?


It all depends on how she understood them. And as we have seen regarding "fallen human nature" modern postlapsarians do not always use and understand terms as EGW did. So it is possible that she agreed with them, but people today don't understand them the way she did.

I should address this before signing off.


KP, you, and I agree here.


And that boils down to, No. Again, the 3 of us agree.


It's not rhetorical. But it does not apply to you, based on your answers above.


This is where we part ways.

The thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character. I disagree that it is formed and developed only through resisting the temptations of the flesh, assuming we are both talking about fallen flesh. If that was the case, then only sinners can form and develop character. If so, God's original plan for the universe either included sin, or was very boring.

Yes, God's plan is to control the flesh through the mind, while Satan's goes the other way. But that does not necessitate fallen flesh, and definitely not depravity. IOW, neither Adam nor Jesus required a fallen nature in order to develop character.


Yes, we should understand how temptation works. But it doesn't mean that Jesus was tempted by the evil of His own heart as we are by ours. If we remember that our greatest battles are against our own internal foes and realize that Christ's internal temptations constituted no more than 1% of what He experienced (as I proved mathematically), we will see that our situation significantly differs from Christ's. While we have a natural affinity for sin, and need God to implant an enmity for sin, Jesus always had that enmity.

Because of this difference, it is not as important to dwell upon what our lower nature does, and how Jesus had the same. It is infinitely more important to see how Jesus exercised His higher nature, and learn to do the same.

OK. Last one. For real....

thanks arnold. by beholding we are changed. studying Jesus life can change and save me.

As I've pointed out, "nature" can mean many different things, depending on the context.



Prescott, Jones and Waggoner spoke a lot more in terms of "flesh" than "nature," which I think leads to less confusion.



I wasn't speaking about the term "postlapsarian" but the meaning expressed by the term. It's just easier than writing out, "the nature (or flesh) of Adam after the fall."



No, I haven't heard any of these things. Neither Jones, nor Prescott, nor Haskell, nor Fifield, nor Ellen White, nor Waggoner expressed any of these ideas. I haven't been attempting to defend what any postlapsarian may have said, but rather that Ellen White was postlapsarian, as was the SDA church as a whole until 30 years after Ellen White's death, after which point some new ideas entered into the church.



I agree with this.

Let me re-ask my question again regarding if you believe Ellen White was a postlapsarian. I'll ask it this way. Using either E. J. Waggoner's chapter on "Christ And His Righteousness" (where he speaks about Christ's taking sinful flesh) or W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh" (I think that's the name; the Avondale sermon that Ellen White endorsed) as a baseline, do you believe Ellen White was a postlapsarian, given how these men understood and expressed postlapsarian thought.

Thanks.

I don't think so, at least not on the part you're commenting on.



I didn't say it was "only" formed this way. I simply said that character is formed when one resists the temptations of the flesh. There are other temptations that one could resist, and those would also develop character.



This is true, if character could only be formed by resisting the temptations of fallen flesh.



I wasn't arguing that it does. I was simply answering your questions.



Again, I didn't address this. I agree that this is of course true.

The argument isn't that Jesus Christ required a fallen nature in order to develop character, but that Jesus Christ came with such a heredity that we have in order to share in our temptations and sorrows, as well as giving us an example of overcoming these temptations by faith.

Many times Ellen White said that Christ took our fallen nature. Here's one:



In view of these statements, I don't see how there's even any question regarding that Christ took our fallen nature. I can see there could be questions regarding what exactly this means, but as to the fact of the matter, it's explicitly statement many, many times that Christ took our fallen nature. Here's one more:





From my perspective, this is a red herring. Neither EGW, nor Waggoner, nor Jones, nor Prescott, nor Fifield, nor any other contemporary of Ellen White that I am aware of ever suggested this. Maybe there's some modern day person who said something like this. I assume you have some reason for bringing this up, as you keep mentioning it, but I don't know what it is.

For me, this is a non-issue. As A. T. Jones said, He wasn't made in the likeness of sinful mind; leave His mind out of it. "Heart" falls in the same category as "mind." The heart is not the flesh, just as the mind is not the flesh.



I remember there was some quote you had in mind her, but don't remember it. Given that man is indivisible, it's not possible to separate one part of the man from another. A temptation may be due to some external stimulus, but that doesn't imply there is no internal element to it as well. I'd be interested in seeing your proof again.



Christ took the flesh that we have which has a natural affinity for sin, but He always said "no" to the temptations of the flesh. Before being converted, we are not partakers of the divine nature, so we ourselves have an affinity for sin, which Christ did not, so I agree on this point; however, the reason Christ did not have an affinity for sin is not because He had sinless flesh, but because He said "no" to the temptations of our sinful flesh. The difference between Christ and us was not in His flesh.



I wouldn't say "infinitely" more important, but I would agree that there are more important things to dwell on. For example, I dwell on the Great Controversy theme, and the importance of understanding God's character; how Christ fully revealed God, and so forth. That doesn't mean I don't think these other topics are unimportant, but I would agree with your assertion here, although not to the degree you are expressing it.

Those don't really have to do with the postlapsarian position.

Of what use is Jesus' use of the higher human nature to us unless its mastery is over the lower, sinful human nature or flesh? We do want to know about Jesus' victory of faith, but unless that victory included conquering sin in our flesh, all his righteousness is of no use to us, his brethren.

Preserving that truth of our common factor with our Saviour is what matters - as KP is trying to, and that's the essence of RBF by the Gospel of Jesus. Thereby the truth is clear enough, not so? If not, how not

Human nature consists of five aspects – 1) the will or the ability and power to choose and decide, 2) the higher faculties or powers of the mind such as reason, intellect, and conscience 3) the cultivated traits of character, 4) the lower faculties or powers of the body such as appetites and passions, and 5) the unholy cravings and clamorings of fallen flesh. The first three aspects are higher nature whereas the last two are lower nature.

1. Higher
2. No.
3a. NA
3b. While it is true cultivating sinless traits of character is ultimately the most important aspect of human nature, this does not, however, mean reining in the unholy cravings and clamorings of fallen flesh is inconsequential. It is the greatest battle ever fought. Subduing and subjecting them to a sanctified will and mind is equally important.


Yes, in this sentence they are interchangeable.


Amen! Jesus inherited the same hardware we do. Like us, though, His human nature did not come with the necessary software. He, like we, depended on the Father for the software to run His hardware unto God’s honor and glory. In this way He, like we, cultivated sinless traits of character.


Character is cultivated not inherited. It is the result of repetitious choices made in the context of internal and external stimuli. Ellen speaks of prenatal influences in a way that leads me to believe even unborn infants begin making conscious and/or unconscious choices as they react and respond to the various stimuli affecting them while in the womb.

“All have sinned.” Which includes infants. Of course God does not count them guilty. No one is neither sinful nor sinless. Neutrality is impossible. People cannot cease sinning until after they are born again and begin abiding in Jesus. Therefore, yes, newborns are born cultivating sinful traits of character. It's what humans do until they are born again and begin abiding in Jesus. Sinning is what we do by default.


I agree with Tom. Human nature consists of the 5 aspects named above (this post), of which character development is the only aspect we have any control over. Of course in Christ we can subdue and subject fallen flesh to the control of reason and conscience. But we have no control over its desire for sinful expression. We cannot turn it off. Nor does it come with a kill switch.

Before we are born again, our will is under the controlling influence of Satan and sinful flesh. We cultivate sinful old man traits and habits of character as we react and respond to the unholy influences that affect our mind and body.

After we are born again, our will is under the controlling influence of God. As we abide in Jesus, as we partake of the divine nature, the Holy Spirit empowers us to recognize and resist sin, self, and Satan, and to cultivate sinless new man traits and habits of character.


Can we divorce the interaction between the higher and lower natures from the equation? It is, after all, the greatest battle that was ever fought in a war that does end until death or the return of Jesus. In this war the heart is transformed. It no longer wars against the soul or Spirit. Nevertheless, the flesh lives on and continually wars against us. But while abiding in Jesus we do not give in to the flesh, we do not express its sinful desires in thoughts, words, or deeds. Listen as Ellen explains it:

Jesus



me

Actually, that was David. But Jesus was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh.



By the way, this was part of what was presented at the 1888 GC meeting in Minneapolis, of which EGW said:



Regarding Luke 1:35, it is not having sinless flesh which made Christ holy.

teresa, you can take a look at W. W. Prescott's sermon, which was about Christ's taking our sinful flesh, and take a look at it, as well as her endorsement of it, and see that her endorsement of it was similar to what you put in bold red from 3SM, as well as the context of Prescott's sermon being similar to what Jones and Waggoner taught.

This is a small portion of the sermon:



EGW endorsed this sermon as truth "separated from error," as well as using language similar to the 3SM quote.

No, Teresa: the difference is in his divinity - which we do not have, no in our humanity, which he did have - for obvious reasons, like being our Saviour with a meritorious character, etc.

Those two long quotes from Ellen White, Teresa, are good. That was as good as she could find words to express what she heard from them: they said a lot more than just "look to Jesus" before you are led by him to keep his faith and do his Commandments...
That's why one reads their material which enjoyed her endorsement to fathom out what else they found in Scripture of Christ and us.

i dont have to see Jesus in the same light you do to know that He has the power to give me victory in my life.

no brother. that Jesus was somehow sinful like us is not the essence of righteousness by faith.

out of curiousity why didnt you put the source of her statement?

i dont understand the point you are making. perhaps you could tell me what you thought i got from these verse.

im lost as to your point,also.

mostly what i hear from some of you was Jesus was "like us" but i dont hear anything of what i consider the message. that is why i ask if any of you know it.

has the "war" taken over the attention?

Take a look at the 10 points listed, via the link of that name, on the home page of www.gospel-herald.com for a pretty thorough coverage of the message, as thus far suggested: this list was drawn up by the voluntary Message Study Committee, a group of pastors and laity existing since about 1985 out of pure frustration at the church's lack of study into the matter amid continuing confusion about the gospel as a church, let alone just what was preached by Waggoner and Jones.

It hasn't been the only effort to recover whatever has been lost from view while the church claims all is well. It is the most well known, for it's honourary leaders, Elder Robert Wieland (now 93, I think) and Elder Donald Short (deceased a few years ago, aged 90-odd; he was older), jointly wrote a bombshell of a letter (at least 60 pages) to the GC ExCom, the highest committee in the church, in 1950, claiming we had lost the meaning of the 1888 message of righteousness of faith and were resorting to false Christ worship, citing Sister White's warning of turning to Baal worship. They were both American missionaries to eastern and southern Africa, respectively, and had great frustrations in the field, but agreed, having met for the first time on the boat on their first holiday trip back to the States in the autumn of 1949, and a winter of research in the White Estate vault and the seminary archives, after the 1950 GC Session in San Francisco, that they had to respond to the call for revival and up holding Christ, at the Session, by challenging the leadership on its confusion over Christ. They first signed the one page letter Wieland had drafted on his own convictions - only Short, of all the brethern Wieland approached, said, "I'll sign that." - and then their longer document was demanded: it saved their ministerial creditials and missionary posts: Wieland eventually retired as the All Africa Editor, at least across central Africa - he was fluent in Swahili - of all the publishing houses; Short was editor of the (then) Sentinel Publishing House in Cape Town (the 'house' has been sold in the last 20 years; publishin now operates out of the Union Conference building, in Bloemfontein, Orange Free State). Their challenge was declined, but a few copies of the document escaped the withdrawal of them by the two missionaries from their friends - having shared several copies while under examination by the Executive Committee, on instruction to withdraw the document from circulation; those leaked copies inspired several to dig deeper for truth - the read had strangely warmed the heart, which is why Wieland and Short wrote it in the first place, for they had been strangely warmed by Waggoner's The Glad Tidings commentary on Galatians, on the law and gospel..., but it also sparked Robert Brinsmead's Sanctuary Awakening movement, which went off the rails. The 1987 "1888 Re-Examined" was the same document, edited for lay readership.

Those two missionaries in Africa have always only wanted the church leadership to recover the 1888 message from the 1888 messengers themselves: republish and reclaim from their books the gems of truth which thrilled Ellen White like nothig else ever did: she stated that it was the loud cry message of Rev 18, by which the earth is yet to "lightened with his glory". That's BIG GUNS!...

In essence, grace is so strong and effective it has intervened in human affairs and history to link us to itself in Christ taking our sinful, corporate nature and actually saving the whole world by his consequent life, death and resurrection, so that we may indeed have faith in him to know the peace of God. Christ's actions saved and reconciled the world to God, but we must believe it to experience it: thus,...as the church today is rather loath to state openly, justification by faith has a regenerating element, recreating our inner man, an experience not located or part of sanctification, where it is rather left by our preaching and literature by statement and by not stating the case when just saying we should follow God.

To be yet more concise: grace is sovereignly effected for us in Christ's person & actions: that he rose from the dead makes him the world's actual redeemer because he is, not because the world knows it - which it doesn't, obviously! He is their redeemer whether they like it or not.

This is the fulfilment of the everlasting covenant: yes, the "two covenants" - old and new, was also an issue at Minneapolis, and Sister White endorsed Waggoner on his view. We do not clearly present the truth on the two covenants - law or grace, yet, still, today...!!...A CD has been compiled by a pastor in the States documenting our confusion in our literature on the covenants, but the truth itself is that the old and new covenants are simultaneous and have run throughout history side by side, which is ultimately common sense, anyway!...it expresses the fact that we act either by human will or the will of God by faith - we have a constant choice, and Israel, at Sinai, opted for human will - check Ex 19:8. The rest of that chapter is likely God dramatically trying to wake them up to their stupidity in their endeavour, without breaking their support for Moses at the same time.

I'll stop here.

thank you for the time and effort you put into your reply.

i had to read for quite a ways before i saw some semblance of an answer to my first question, but it was there.

i have another question.

if my question(s) were misread/misunderstood, how would one know if s/he is reading anything else correctly?

Just laziness. I've already quoted it several times already, with the source.

Just a small point of correction. This web-site was put up by an individual, who at the time was a part of the 1888 Message Study Committee (MSC), but this web page is simply his own web site. The 1888 MSC has its own web page, which is www.1888msc.org (it's down right now for renovations).

Very nice job, Colin, on your summary.

Interesting, that Jesus effected some aspect of redemption apart from the participation and even the knowledge of those being redeemed.

According to the SOP, Christ "saved the world." John, a couple of times, referred to Christ as "the Savior of the world."

Add Mary, the mother of Jesus, right beside "me" (above)

And Paul says, in 1 Tim 4:10
This text says it very well, and the GC can't really get round it - still maintaining that God can do an awful lot, but not anything really effective re salvation. Here is a study limiting God's sovereignty, even without humans in any way limiting him.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Justification1Tm4,10.htm

Last quarter the lesson, written incidentally by the same scholar, allowed for Jesus personally to be Saviour by grace, but not for the world actually to be saved by grace, before faith for faith (somewhat as per Rom 1:17a). Quite an anomaly.

I hadn't thought of 1 Tim. 4:10 in a long time. Yes, that's a very good one.

Some other scripture texts are 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19, Isa. 44:22, 1 John 2:2, and Romans 5:18.







First two quotes are NIV, last one NKJV.

The Isaiah quote is interesting because it brings out that God calls for us to return to Him on the basis of having blotted out our transgressions and having redeemed us. Since this is referring to an action God has taken, as apart from man, this must include all.

I think the 2 Cor. 5 and Romans 5 quotes speak for themselves. All men were included in Christ's work, as Paul explains.

Here's an SOP quote on the same theme, reminiscent of 2 Cor. 5:19:



Here Christ effected a work encompassing the "whole race of men."