Bump.


If it requires the Latter Rain to reach the point where we can be like Jesus all the time, doesn't that imply it isn't possible without the LR?

And, doesn't Ellen say the LR will be poured out in the future during the Sunday crisis? (I realize it began to fall in 1888 but things stopped. It resume will again during Sunday laws.)

"If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter. The work of Christ was to take from the claims of Satan his control of man, and He could do this only in the way that He came – a man, tempted as a man, rendering the obedience of a man."

Isn't having a sinless nature like Adam had before he sinned a power and an advantage?

"But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), He lived a sinless life.

Since partaking of the divine nature does not make sinners a God, why, then, do some people seem to think partaking of fallen human nature made Jesus a sinner?

Yes. It is like two firemen battling a blazing oil refinery, and one of them has the advantage of having a wet napkin in his shirt pocket.

Arnold, a while back I stated the following:



So you don't have to go back and hunt for it, here is post #112340:

Thanks for pointing that out. I only have time to peek in now and then, and with a dozen interesting posts between peeks it's easy to miss some important ones.

Since you brought up several points in the post, I'll address it in pieces.


I thought I already addressed this some time ago. If by "postlapsarian" you mean that Jesus took upon Himself fallen flesh, but not a fallen spiritual nature, then I don't know anybody today who is not a postlapsarian. But that is a very broad brush. If we are going to delve into the details that Willy hates, we cannot afford to be that clumsy.

Did the entire church believe that Jesus experienced the strong tendency (propensity) to sin? Did the entire church believe that such tendencies to sin were outside the realm of the spiritual nature? When speaking of Christ's human nature, did the entire church agree that His spiritual nature was not part of the topic?

This is where I believe modern postlaps part ways with your favorite authors of a century ago. As you have pointed out, they often, if not always, had Christ's spiritual nature in mind. In contrast, today's postlap theologian wants to separate His spiritual nature from His body.

Plus, the postlap camp is a bit fragmented today, as opposed to the alleged unanimity of the 19th century. For example, take this simple statement, "There were in him no corrupt principles." Some postlaps say it was true for Jesus; others say it applied to unfallen Adam, not Jesus.

Anyway, if we are going to limit "postlapsarian" to describing His flesh, not His spirit, then there is no disagreement. That is, except for the Holy Flesh people, who live to this day in the minds of some.


She told Baker that "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity" while the rest of us were "born with inherent propensities of disobedience." Did EGW ever teach a different position than this?

Did EGW ever say directly that Jesus had tendencies to sin? Did she ever say directly that we have tendencies to sin?

Her warning to Baker was to avoid "making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be." I don't think she said anything differently to anyone else. It would, however, be good for us to remember that today.


Did Donnel and Davis teach that Jesus was sinless? Did they teach that His spiritual nature was like unfallen Adam's? Did EGW ever teach these things?

When you compare yourself to Adam before he fell do you really only see his advantage over you as no better than the firefighter with the wet napkin in his shirt pocket? I don't understand your analogy.

The analogy is that compared to the power we have when we have the mind of Christ, it is irrelevant whether or not you have the body of Adam. In terms of arguing about Christ's body, it would be like the 2nd fireman saying to the 1st that it is impossible for him to fight the fire because he lacks the wet napkin. Any advantage it may have it inconsequential except for microscopic conflagrations.

People need to understand that sin is not a matter of the flesh; we are not fighting against flesh and blood.

Are you saying the only difference between born again believers who have the mind of Christ and pre-fall Adam is physical? What about the internal foes and evil propensities we inherit at birth? Isn't not having them a power and an advantage? Isn't having them a disadvantage?

As this thread has become too long, I have divided this thread into two threads, therefore, this thread will be closed.

The continuation of the thread under the same name with (2) after it is now at the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=112025&page=1