Bro. Ellis Higham misunderstood the question. He was not arguing that the matter of what Christ would have to do if he had been alone, was not left an open question, (which bro. Hensley keeps trying to bring into the discussion) but rather he was saying that the matter of Christ dying to offer the sacrificed on account of sin nature had not been left an open question in 1873 and the Renunciationist heresy, 1910 and the Bell heresy in Australasia, and 1920 and the Strickler heresy in North America.

Bro. Hensley would like to get started on the question of Christ alone, for if one reasons the matter out, it would work this way. Christ inherited sin nature from his descent from his mother, Mary. But what if he had not inherited anything? What if he had been in Adam's position before he sinned. Then he would not have had to offer on account of anything, because there would be nothing in his nature to create any barrier to life. If bro. Hensley can get bro. Higham to consider Christ alone, not the descendant in the condemned line of Adam, Abraham, and David; then he could get him to say that Christ would not have had to offer himself as the sacrifice on account of his (and their) nature. He wouldn't have had their nature. Bro. Higham pointed out from the start that this is irrelevant.