Rosangela, this is from W. W. Prescott's sermon. You agree with these thoughts?

Rosangela, you seem to be suggesting God did not design or equip unfallen FMAs with the power and strength to resist the power of evil and to develop sinless traits of character, that they must rely on the power of God to do these things, that they do not naturally possess the power and strength to do them.

But the following quotes make it clear that man was originally endowed with noble powers and the strength to resist the power of evil and to develop sinless traits of character. In contrast, man in his fallen state does not possess the power or strength to do these things. Fallen man must now rely on the power of God to enable him to use his faculties of man and body to do those things unfallen man was able to with the power and strength he naturally possessed.

SC 17
Man was originally endowed with noble powers and a well-balanced mind. He was perfect in his being, and in harmony with God. His thoughts were pure, his aims holy. But through disobedience, his powers were perverted, and selfishness took the place of love. His nature became so weakened through transgression that it was impossible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil. {SC 17.1}

DA 466
The expulsion of sin is the act of the soul itself. True, we have no power to free ourselves from Satan's control; but when we desire to be set free from sin, and in our great need cry out for a power out of and above ourselves, the powers of the soul are imbued with the divine energy of the Holy Spirit, and they obey the dictates of the will in fulfilling the will of God. {DA 466.4}

In what state was Jesus in when He became a human? Was He like Adam before the Fall? Was He able to use the power and strength He was incarnated with to resist the power of evil and to develop sinless traits of character? Or, like fallen man, was Jesus incarnated without the power and strength to do these things? Did He have to rely on the power of God for the same reasons fallen man must?

Sure, and in the passages we are discussing she says absolutely nothing about “fallen” or “sinful” nature. She just says “man’s nature” or “human nature.”


Oh, yes, of course it does. In your favorite passage, for instance, she says, “If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper.” This has nothing to do with the issue of fallen/unfallen nature, as both Arnold and I have been pointing out, since unfallen Adam could obviously yield to temptation. This has to do with the view of a especial power conferred by Christ’s divine nature which prevented Him from choosing sin, thereby making His human nature somewhat different from ours. This to me is obvious and there is no point in repeating it over and over again, so I’ll let this subject rest.


Obviously this wasn’t the case, for the reasons mentioned above.


Yes, I do, as I said before, since I believe Ellen White’s use of the expression “fallen nature” does not involve the mind in its spiritual/moral aspect.

Mike,

Where do the passages you quoted say that unfallen human beings could resist the temptations of an angel – a being superior to them – in their own power, without divine aid?

And what do you make of the passage I quoted?

“Satan charmed the first Adam by his sophistry, just as he charms men and women today, leading them to believe a lie. Adam did not reach above his humanity for divine power. He believed the words of Satan. But the second Adam was not to become the enemy's bondslave.” {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 6}

And of others, like this one?

“If she [Eve] had sought her husband, and they had related to their Maker the words of the serpent, they would have been delivered at once from his artful temptation.” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 2}

Still another quote, Mike, I hadn't been able to find earlier today:

"All the angels of heaven were prepared to come to the aid of Adam and Eve in this contest with the enemy, if they would call upon God for help." {ST, February 17, 1909 par. 2}

Rosangela, thank you sharing the quotes. But do they say unfallen beings are unable to resist the power of evil without relying on the power of God? Do unfallen beings seek God's help in resisting the power of evil for the same reasons we do, namely, because we are powerless?

"His nature became so weakened through transgression that it was impossible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil." This sentence implies that the opposite was true prior to falling. That is, prior to falling it was possible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil.

Of course, it would have been to his advantage to seek God's help. Adam and Eve were inexperienced, and it would have been wise for them to enlist God's aid in their contest with Satan.

With this in mind, though, the main question that needs to be addressed is - Do unfallen beings possess powers and strength that give them an advantage not available to fallen beings in resisting the power of evil? And, how does our answer to this question effect our understanding of Jesus' human nature? Did He have an advantage not available to us?

We inherit a nature whose powers are perverted, selfishness has taken the place of love. We are powerless to free ourselves from the control of Satan. "But through disobedience, his powers were perverted, and selfishness took the place of love. His nature became so weakened through transgression that it was impossible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil." "True, we have no power to free ourselves from Satan's control ..."

1. Is our nature changed back to the way it was before Adam fell when we are born again? Are we in the same position to resist the power of evil as unfallen beings?

2. Which nature did Jesus inherit? Did His human nature have the powers and strength necessary to resist the power of evil? Or, was it needful for Him to rely on God's help?

3. In what way was His human nature different than the one we are born with? And, in what way was it different than the one we are born again with?

4. What kind of human nature will the 144,000 have after probation closes? In what way will it be different than the one we are born with? And, in what way will it be different than the one Jesus was born with?

But it was the case. We know it was the case. This is the starting point; we know what happened historically. If your interpretation leads you to conclude that something "obviously wasn't the case" which actually happened, that interpretation needs to be rethought.

The whole point I've been making is that you are seeking to interpret EGW's words without regard to the historical setting. You look at her words, and come up with the idea that she was arguing against those who had the idea that because Christ had a divine nature, His human nature could not be tempted. But we don't have to guess what happened historically, because we know. This isn't like the Baker letter where we don't know and have to guess.

What happened was the following. Ellen White had not heard what we now refer to as "the 1888 message" until she heard Waggoner preach at the Mpls. GC session. When she heard it, she was overjoyed. Unfortunately, she was about the only one. They thought she was off her rocker, and doubted whether she was still a prophet. Since the leadership would not lay hold of the light, she did, and she went preaching with J&W from place to place, often to SDA campuses.

The following represents the preaching those that was heard:



The argument is simple:
a.Christ partook of our sinful nature.
b.If not, He was not "made like unto His brethren."
c.If not, He was not "tempted in all points as we are."
d.If not, He could not help us.

Note, in particular, the following point:



It is easy to see that someone hearing this preaching would ask the question, "How could Christ have taken our nature? If He did so, then He would have fallen to similar temptations that we do."

So Ellen White addressed these questions by explaining the same thing that Waggoner was arguing:
a.If He did not take our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are.
b.If He did not take our nature, He could not be our helper.

She's saying the same thing Waggoner was.

You are starting with what Ellen White wrote, and using that to come up with some idea of history. That's backwards. We know what the history was. From that, it's easy to see that EGW's writing simply cannot be interpreted as your are suggesting. Nobody was having the question, "Did Christ's divine nature prevent His human nature from being able to be tempted?" because the preaching of Jones and Waggoner was not addressing this point. It addressed the points cited; if Christ did not take our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are, and could not help us -- the same points EGW addressed in her response.

This is just one example. The same principle applies in general across the board. For example, S. N. Haskell quoted from "The Desire of Ages," and explained publicly that EGW was saying that Christ inherited all the inclinations of fallen humanity.

Everybody (i.e. EGW, Haskell, Jones, Waggoner) is saying the same thing! We have:

a.Ellen White defending the preaching of Jones and Waggoner, using the same arguments they used.
b.Haskell quoting Ellen White, using the same arguments, citing her as saying the same thing Jones and Waggoner said, and that he (Haskell) said.
c.Jones quoting from Ellen White at the G.C. session on the human nature of Christ.
d.Waggoner preaching at the G.C. session with EGW present, presenting the same arguments.

They all present the same arguments, and defend each other's positions. When one considers the historical setting, there's simply no room to separate EGW from the mix. She's too intertwined.

Regarding Prescott's sermon, when I presented the following idea some time ago, you strongly disagreed with it:



I even used the same argument regarding Levi and Melchisedec. Now you say you agree with it? If that's really so, I'm glad we're in agreement on this point.

Also if you really believe that Christ took exactly the same sinful flesh that we have, "flesh of sin," I'm glad we agree on this point too.

No, not for the same reasons we do, for they are not weak in moral power. However, the factors which influence the strength of the temptation are both the weakness of the creature being tempted and the subtlety of the temptation. The implied concept of post-lapsarians that the difficulty of the temptation is inversely proportional to the strength of the creature being tempted (that is, that the weaker the creature, the more difficult to overcome is the temptation and, conversely, the stronger the creature, the easier to overcome is the temptation) is completely false.

“The temptations that assailed Christ were as much more intense and subtle in their character than those which assail man as his nature was purer and more exalted than is the nature of man in its moral and physical defilement.” {ST, April 25, 1892 par. 6}

“The Son of God placed Himself in the sinner's stead, and passed over the ground where Adam fell, and endured the temptation in the wilderness which was a hundredfold stronger than was or ever will be brought to bear upon the human race.”{5MR 112.2}

Christ's temptations were 100 times stronger than ours, but this was not because Christ was weaker than we. The opposite is true.


In view of the comments and quotes above, would you say that a stronger moral power constitutes an advantage?


Well, He certainly was superior to us:

“He who could take up the Son of God, and place him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and again could take him up into an exceeding high mountain, and present before him the kingdoms of the world, can exercise his power upon the human family, who are far inferior in strength and wisdom to Jesus, even after he had taken upon himself man's nature.” {ST, November 13, 1884 par. 4}

But does this constitute an advantage in terms of making temptation easier to overcome?

So you say I am seeking to interpret EGW’s words without regard to the historical setting? I’ve provided three parallel quotes – one from 1890 (the same year of the quote you provided), one from 1892, and one from 1898 (The Desire of Ages). Quotes from close years and identical subject – isn’t this historical setting? All the quotes say substantially the same thing. All of them, including the one you provided, discuss Christ’s capability of yielding to temptation – which is something that has nothing to do with the fallen/unfallen issue. Yet you insist the quote you provided has to do with Jones and Waggoner’s preaching and with the fallen/unfallen issue. So there’s nothing else I can say about this.


Did I? I don’t remember this argument in our discussions. If I disagreed, it must be with the point you were trying to make using this argument. Do you remember what the point was?