I do apologise for not posting too much in recent days. The good news, however, is that I have finished the final draft of my book on the theology of the Priesthood in the LDS Church:
"After the Order of the Son of God": The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood.
For those who wish to provide a front cover for the book, I am willing to take your entries. You can send them to IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom.
In a post, The Reality of Christ’s Humanity: Was it possible for Jesus Christ to sin? I briefly discussed that Jesus could have sinned and did not have an "immaculate" nature, and ended by quoting the following from President Howard W. Hunter:
I read the following from J.J. Andrew, a Christadelphian theologian from the 19th century. While one would disagree with his rejection of the personal pre-existence of Jesus (as a Christadelphian, he held to a Socinian Christology), among other things (e.g., the somewhat polemical language in the following), he hit the nail on the head on the nature of Jesus in the following portion of his work on Jesus:
On how Latter-day Saint theology allows for one to affirm the true full humanity of Jesus and his personal pre-existence, see:
The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence
Paypal
Gofundme
"After the Order of the Son of God": The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood.
For those who wish to provide a front cover for the book, I am willing to take your entries. You can send them to IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom.
In a post, The Reality of Christ’s Humanity: Was it possible for Jesus Christ to sin? I briefly discussed that Jesus could have sinned and did not have an "immaculate" nature, and ended by quoting the following from President Howard W. Hunter:
It is important to remember that Jesus was capable of sinning, that he could have succumbed, that the plan of life and salvation could have been foiled, but that he remained true. Had there been no possibility of his yielding to the enticement of Satan, there would have been no real test, no genuine victory in the result. If he had been stripped of the faculty to sin, he would have been stripped of his very agency. It was he who had come to safeguard and ensure the agency of man. He had to retain the capacity and ability to sin had he willed so to do. (Howard W. Hunter, The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 4)
I read the following from J.J. Andrew, a Christadelphian theologian from the 19th century. While one would disagree with his rejection of the personal pre-existence of Jesus (as a Christadelphian, he held to a Socinian Christology), among other things (e.g., the somewhat polemical language in the following), he hit the nail on the head on the nature of Jesus in the following portion of his work on Jesus:
Jesus not immaculate
Had he been of a nature superior to that of man’s such as the angelic, he could not have fulfilled what was requisite in a perfect atoning sacrifice; he could not have been “in all points tempted like as we are” (Heb. 4, 15); he could have not “tasted DEATH for ever man” (Heb 2, 9); he could not have become “perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2, 10); and God could not, through him, have “condemned sin in the flesh”—(Rom. 8, 3). Hence Paul says “IN ALL THINGS it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people”—(Heb. 2, 17). Accordingly, “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels” (v. 9), and subject to the same law of death as all other descendants of Adam. This is comprised in the statement that he was “like unto his brethren in all things”. To meet the requirements of Eternal wisdom, it was necessary that the same nature which had transgressed should suffer the penalty of death in the person of one who was sinless.
The importance of this truth is made evident by the apostle John’s injunction in his first epistle:--“Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, if not of God; and this is the spirit of antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come”—(1 Jno. 4:2-3). The Romish church makes void this truth, by affirming that the flesh of Jesus was immaculate and different from that of all other men; thereby identifying itself as the “antichrists”. Nearly all Protestant churches follow in the same strain, through in a more modified degree; thus providing that they are the daughters of the Romish “Mother of Harlots”; while a third class teach that Jesus Christ was born under precisely the same conditions as Adam before the Fall,--free from all effects of Edenic sin. Each of these dogmas nullifies the New Testament truth that Jesus Christ was “made like unto this brethren in ALL THINGS”; and came in “THE SAME” flesh. (John James Andrew, The Real Christ [London: “The Dawn” Book Supply, 1948], 90-91, italics and capitalisation in original)
On how Latter-day Saint theology allows for one to affirm the true full humanity of Jesus and his personal pre-existence, see:
The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence
Support this blog:
Paypal
