Revival Sermons

Theology => The Cross => Topic started by: Richard OFfill on September 10, 2008, 03:31:05 PM

Title: Interesting
Post by: Richard OFfill on September 10, 2008, 03:31:05 PM
Yesterday Betty and I were reading from a little devotional book entitled That I May Know Him by Elllen White.

I was interested in the words on page 268,"He was a mighty petitioiner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are.... ."

How wonderful it is to contemplate that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. 100% God and 100% man. I have thought that throughout the endless ages of eternity we will not be able to fully understand what he did for us.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 12, 2008, 12:03:23 AM
Yesterday Betty and I were reading from a little devotional book entitled That I May Know Him by Elllen White.

I was interested in the words on page 268,"He was a mighty petitioiner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are.... ."

How wonderful it is to contemplate that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. 100% God and 100% man. I have thought that throughout the endless ages of eternity we will not be able to fully understand what he did for us.

Pastor,

That is an excellent, clear statement on the nature of Christ. He inherited our human frailities, but not our sinful natures, or the"passions of our human, fallen natures".

 He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, a Lamb without spot or blemish:

1 Peter 1:18,19 (King James Version)

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
----------------------------------------------------------

Ah!, the sweet mystery of the incarnation of Christ. We will be there 1000 years, and not even begin to understand the depth and riches of Christ and His infinite love and mercy

Romans 11:33-36:

33 "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, indeed.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 12, 2008, 05:08:13 AM
Stan,

There is a difference between "sinful nature" or "fallen flesh" and "sinful character" or "spiritual nature" as denoted by the phrase "passions of our human, fallen natures".

Passions have to do with character in that they are an exhibition of thought and feeling.

Please note that in other quotes by Sister White wrote the following:

"But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."  -- The Desire of Ages, p. 117.

"Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed."   --The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

"Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours."   --The Desire of Ages, p. 311.

"The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience."   The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.

I hope this helps you to understand that when Jesus came to this earth to live in obedience to the Father's commandments that He came as weak as weak in the flesh as yourself, as myself, to overcome sin by faith in His Father so that we might have the same spiritual nature as Himself and overcome sin as He did. This is the true meaning of "keep the faith of Jesus" as recorded by John in Revelation 14:12.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Richard OFfill on September 12, 2008, 03:55:59 PM
Very interesting. It doesn't sound like he was just like us. I have heard people say that He wasn't just like us then he wasn't our Savior. I have contemplated that when Satan tempted him after the wilderness experience he basically tempted him in all the areas that we are tempted in.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 12, 2008, 05:38:43 PM
Very interesting. It doesn't sound like he was just like us. I have heard people say that He wasn't just like us then he wasn't our Savior. I have contemplated that when Satan tempted him after the wilderness experience he basically tempted him in all the areas that we are tempted in.
He did not have a human father like us. In other ways he was not like us. He was 100% human and he was also 100% divine. that is not like us. However, He exercized no power or divine privilege or advantage that we don't have. He was tempted far beyond what any of us  are called upon to endure and He did not sin. He proved that fallen humans can, with the power of the Holy Spirit, resist Satan just like Jesus did.  Satan found nothing in Jesus that responded in a positive way to temptation. Jesus hated sin "with a pure hatred" and He INSTANTLY rejected every one of Satan's temptations. That is the state that we can and must be in if we are alive when probation closes.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Richard OFfill on September 12, 2008, 06:03:38 PM
That is good. Paul speaks of having to die daily. He states that in me is no good thing?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: reaching4heaven on September 13, 2008, 04:53:07 AM
That is good. Paul speaks of having to die daily. He states that in me is no good thing?

I agree.

Romans 7:18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not."

There is definitely no good thing in me when I walk in the flesh. But shall we leave it there? God doesn't want us to or we will be lost. We need to cry out for salvation as Paul does a few verses later in that chapter:

Romans 7:24 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"  

And receive the answer:

Romans 7:25 "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

Then we need to receive the answer - Christ Jesus our Lord!  When we do that, seeking to be one with Him (which He prayed for us in John 17) we will cease to walk in the flesh and we will walk in the Spirit.

Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Then we can preach the gospel (good news!):

Matthew 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Colossians 1:27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory"

God Bless.

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 18, 2008, 12:47:23 PM
Yesterday Betty and I were reading from a little devotional book entitled That I May Know Him by Elllen White.

I was interested in the words on page 268,"He was a mighty petitioiner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are.... ."

How wonderful it is to contemplate that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. 100% God and 100% man. I have thought that throughout the endless ages of eternity we will not be able to fully understand what he did for us.

Soli Deo Gloria replied as follows:
Pastor,

That is an excellent, clear statement on the nature of Christ. He inherited our human frailities, but not our sinful natures, or the"passions of our human, fallen natures".

 He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, a Lamb without spot or blemish:

1 Peter 1:18,19 (King James Version)

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
----------------------------------------------------------

Ah!, the sweet mystery of the incarnation of Christ. We will be there 1000 years, and not even begin to understand the depth and riches of Christ and His infinite love and mercy

Romans 11:33-36:

33 "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, indeed.

Soli Deo Gloria!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deep Waters then replied with this:
Stan,

There is a difference between "sinful nature" or "fallen flesh" and "sinful character" or "spiritual nature" as denoted by the phrase "passions of our human, fallen natures".

Passions have to do with character in that they are an exhibition of thought and feeling.

Please note that in other quotes by Sister White wrote the following:

"But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."  -- The Desire of Ages, p. 117.

"Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed."   --The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

"Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours."   --The Desire of Ages, p. 311.

"The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience."   The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.

I hope this helps you to understand that when Jesus came to this earth to live in obedience to the Father's commandments that He came as weak as weak in the flesh as yourself, as myself, to overcome sin by faith in His Father so that we might have the same spiritual nature as Himself and overcome sin as He did. This is the true meaning of "keep the faith of Jesus" as recorded by John in Revelation 14:12.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deep Waters,
Just what is your problem with my reply to Pastor O? And your last paragraph above is written in a quite a condescending manner. I wrote my post late at night, when I was in a mood to really praise the Lord, and my post was written in a spirit of worship and praise.

I just don't understand the spirit or tone of your post, when I was just heartily agreeing with the Pastor and the quote from Ellen White that he gave?
 
Stan

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 18, 2008, 01:17:07 PM
Here is an official statement from the General Conference of the SDA church regarding the nature of Christ. I agree with these statements taken from Questions on Doctrine as well as these quotes from Ellen White:

Ellen G. White has written:

He took "the nature, but not the sinfulness of man."
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on September 18, 2008, 01:41:14 PM
Quote
The angels prostrated themselves before Him. They offered their lives. Jesus said to them that He would by His death save many, that the life of an angel could not pay the debt. His life alone could be accepted of His Father as a ransom for man. Jesus also told them that they would have a part to act, to be with Him and at different times strengthen Him; that He would take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs; that they would be witnesses of His humiliation and great sufferings; and that as they would witness His sufferings and the hatred of men toward Him, they would be stirred with the deepest emotion, and through their love for Him would wish to rescue and deliver Him from His murderers; but that they must not interfere to prevent anything they should behold; and that they should act a part at His resurrection; that the plan of salvation was devised, and His Father had accepted the plan. {SR 43.2}

my heart cries when I see how much Jesus gave for us....
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 18, 2008, 05:37:30 PM
People seem not to be able to grasp how Jesus could take Adam's fallen nature and not sin. Therefore naturally they can not be made to believe that the last generation of faithful people living when Jesus comes will be brought to the point of not sinning even by a thought.

This is really quite simple. I do not have the quote at my finger tips but Mrs.White said that Jesus had dual natures. He took Adam's fallen nature but He also possessed the divine nature.  The fallen nature that Jesus took was at it were in a vacume without a breath of life. It is not a sin to have a fallen nature.We do not believe in original sin. It is a sin to allow the fallen nature to express itself. Christ was born with the divine nature ruling the fallen nature...absolutely. We grow into that state to where the divine nature has ultimate sway and control. This is called sanctification. Justification gives us a chance for sanctification to work and wipes the slate clean as we are growing and repenting along the way.
   This is crucially important to understand. To miss this is to make excuses for sin. Ultimately this will end in sacrificing the Sabbath under the guise...we can't obey anyway so what does it matter?

Jesus was not just like us in that He had no cultivated sin. He was not like us in that He was born with what we as this last generation may and must obtain that being the divine nature ruling the fallen nature. He was not like us in that we are not tempted to access supernatural power and thwart the Father's plan.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Richard OFfill on September 18, 2008, 06:25:04 PM
As we all know there exists in some quarters huge disagreements about the nature of Christ. Recently I heard that it was splitting a church. Everyone seems to have a Spirit of Prophecy to prove their point. Some even say that the book Questions on Doctrines sold us out on the nature of Christ. Yet the quotations noted below remain. Personally I believe that Jesus was, if you please, "a third kind". I am not able to understand the point of view that says that unless a person believes that Jesus had a fallen human nature they don't believe in victory over sin. I personally believe what the quotations below are saying and yet I do believe in victory over sin.

I was once standing at the door shaking hands after church and a brother shook my hand and asked me what I believed about the nature of Christ. I guessed where he was coming from -- By the way I have never preached a sermon on the nature of Christ and until this post rarely mention it with anyone; knowing what can happen when the subject is discussed -- and I thought I would tell him how Jesus gives me victory over sin and how the Holy Spirit is blessing my life. His answer:" I don't care what Jesus is doing in your life, it is what you believe that matters." I smiled and walked away.

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. . . ." Amazing Grace page 42

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, he began where the first Adam began. Willingly he passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure." {Youth Instructor, June 2, 1898 par. 1}

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God, and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began." 8 Manuscript Release p. 40


Please don't club me to death  :-).  To me this only proves that it is a sad mistake to try to divide and conquer, splitting churches and friendships over this matter.

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 18, 2008, 06:43:06 PM
Those three quotes all seem to be the same quote. I don't think your quote contradicts the quotes that state that Christ took Adam's fallen nature. Because Christ began where Adam began and fell does not mean that He began with an unfallen nature...does it? This quote seems to indicate that Christ began by conquering where Adam fell (appetite) rather than by beginning with Adam's unfallen nature. Otherwise we have a contradiction within the SOP.


The problem is that it is a dicotomy to say that Jesus is our pattern if we believe He had an advantage over us.
What do you make of the SOP quotes that Jesus took Adam's nature after the fall ?

This seems to always fall back to the same concern. If we are talking about two entirely different natures how can Christ be our pattern and example?
Christ would only have proved by His life that Adam need not have fallen but how would He prove by His life that we need not fall... if He had an unfallen nature and we a fallen nature. It seems to me that Christ would be a pattern for unfallen angels but not for fallen man.

While I do not by any means go around trying to work this topic into every conversation...true doctrine has always brought division. While truth is truth my main concern is when people have agendas and use the claim that Jesus had Adam's nature before the fall to lever in acceptable sin. I have a few conservative friends that think Christ took Adam's unfallen nature yet as of yet they are not making excuse for sin.  We just tend not to go there if possible. Sometimes it is not possible to avoid the topic.

Some say that the fallen nature that Christ took was merely a fallen physical nature. In other words a body that was subject to pain and hunger. That Christ had that physical nature should be so obvious as to not even need mentioning. That would be like saying that water is wet.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 18, 2008, 09:04:10 PM
One of the most discerning statements I have heard on the subject was made by Leslie Hardinge at the Redwood campmeeting in Northern California in 1995 or 96. I listened to the tapes several times during the summer. The seminar was not on the nature of Christ, but he made this comment as an aside.

He said that it wasn't difficult to solve the question of whether Christ took Adam's prefall or post fall nature. "Adam was not subject to death before he sinned. He would have lived forever had he not sinned. When Adam sinned, he bacame subject to death. Jesus was subject to death from the day he was born." (paraphrased)

That is evidenced by the flight into Egypt to avoid Herod's/Satan's  plan to kill him.
Jesus could have sinned. He could have failed. Or He could have called it off in the weakness of His humanity. The government and the character of God and the security and happiness of the universe was dependent on His victory over sin and Satan.  Not to mention the salvation of mankind.
How can we not throw our crowns at His feet?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 18, 2008, 09:24:09 PM
... He inherited our human frailities, but not our sinful natures, or the"passions of our human, fallen natures"....

Deep Waters then replied with this:
Stan,

There is a difference between "sinful nature" or "fallen flesh" and "sinful character" or "spiritual nature" as denoted by the phrase "passions of our human, fallen natures"....

I hope this helps you to understand that when Jesus came to this earth to live in obedience to the Father's commandments that He came as weak as weak in the flesh as yourself, as myself, to overcome sin by faith in His Father so that we might have the same spiritual nature as Himself and overcome sin as He did. This is the true meaning of "keep the faith of Jesus" as recorded by John in Revelation 14:12....

Stan replied:
Deep Waters,
Just what is your problem with my reply to Pastor O? And your last paragraph above is written in a quite a condescending manner. I wrote my post late at night, when I was in a mood to really praise the Lord, and my post was written in a spirit of worship and praise.

I just don't understand the spirit or tone of your post, when I was just heartily agreeing with the Pastor and the quote from Ellen White that he gave?
 
Stan

You appeared to be confused on the point of what is fallen human nature and the distinction made by "passions of our human, fallen natures".

If you don't understand the spirit or tone of a person's post, then don't bother to judge it as condescending. It appears to me that you have determined to take focus off of the nature of Christ and what that should mean to us, and discredit my attempt to broaden your apparent narrow view by providing a balance of Ellen White's writings on the subject. Why should any of us be satisfied with an imperfect understanding of what Christ has done and is doing for us?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 18, 2008, 09:43:33 PM
Revelation 14 speaks of the patience of the saints who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.

How much faith does Jesus have if He came to prove the commandments of God could be kept with an unfallen nature? After all, the unfallen angels have an unfallen nature and they have proved it possible.

Did Adam receive the promise of a Redeemer, the seed of the woman, when he had an unfallen nature or a fallen nature?

What kind of nature did Seth have when he was born? Or Abraham? Or David?

The problem is that many believe that being born with a fallen nature is in itself a sin. That is why the Roman Catholics believe that Mary had an immaculate conception, so that she might have an unfallen nature to pass on to Jesus at His conception and birth. The problem is that the logical conclusion is Jesus received all His virtue from Mary, and not from God. Therefore the momentum today to make Mary a goddess.

All these thoughts must maintain, in some way the faith of Jesus and its importance to us today. Unfortunately the RC belief of immaculate conception of Mary does away with the faith of Jesus.

Another problem is that many believe it is a sin to be tempted. And if Jesus had a fallen nature, then He must be tempted by that nature. And if He was tempted by that nature, then He sinned because temptation is sin.

A third problem people have with the nature of Christ is that they refuse to believe that it might even be possible for Jesus to yield to temptation and commit sin. Yet we are told that the risk was there.

Recently, as I have studied this issue from the perspective of Jesus' faith, I am amazed at His humilty, and I am overwhelmed by His love that He would risk defeat to save me.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on September 19, 2008, 10:01:21 AM
One of the most discerning statements I have heard on the subject was made by Leslie Hardinge at the Redwood campmeeting in Northern California in 1995 or 96. I listened to the tapes several times during the summer. The seminar was not on the nature of Christ, but he made this comment as an aside.

He said that it wasn't difficult to solve the question of whether Christ took Adam's prefall or post fall nature. "Adam was not subject to death before he sinned. He would have lived forever had he not sinned. When Adam sinned, he bacame subject to death. Jesus was subject to death from the day he was born." (paraphrased)

That is evidenced by the flight into Egypt to avoid Herod's/Satan's  plan to kill him.
Jesus could have sinned. He could have failed. Or He could have called it off in the weakness of His humanity. The government and the character of God and the security and happiness of the universe was dependent on His victory over sin and Satan.  Not to mention the salvation of mankind.
How can we not throw our crowns at His feet?

Makes perfect sense... thank you for sharing this perspective Larry. 
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Raven on September 19, 2008, 05:05:43 PM
Maybe it was providential that my former employer walked into my office a couple of days ago and handed me the most definitive statement I have ever seen on this subject.  It is from Manuscript Release, Vol. 16,  No. 12111--3, 4, p. 182, 183.

   The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.  

"Fallen but not corrupted" is the key phrase, and, one would assume, should end debate on this subject, but, obviously that is not the case.  The underlining was in the original, from which I got this quote.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on September 19, 2008, 07:02:52 PM
Raven,
That should put it to rest.... :snooze:





  but I don't think so as these things keep coming up.    :shh:
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Raven on September 20, 2008, 03:18:41 AM
Raven,
That should put it to rest.... :snooze:





  but I don't think so as these things keep coming up.    :shh:

I can conceive of someone playing semantics and trying to prove that "fallen" doesn't mean what it seems to, etc., ad infinitum.  :roll:  But I believe the statement speaks for itself, and needs no clarification.  It is simply an inspired commentary on Heb. 2:17:  Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.  What part of "all things" is it that some folks don't understand? 
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 20, 2008, 04:11:11 AM
Maybe it was providential that my former employer walked into my office a couple of days ago and handed me the most definitive statement I have ever seen on this subject.  It is from Manuscript Release, Vol. 16,  No. 12111--3, 4, p. 182, 183.

   The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.  

"Fallen but not corrupted" is the key phrase, and, one would assume, should end debate on this subject, but, obviously that is not the case.  The underlining was in the original, from which I got this quote.

If the debate were to continue, it would probably do so along the lines as to what is meant by "corrupted". In which case, the secondary operative phrase would be: "and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God."

Thus the importance of SOP encouraging and warning us that: "All who are partakers of the divine nature will escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. It is impossible for those who indulge the gratification of appetite to attain to Christian perfection." PH085, 15. Again, the connection is made between corruption and lust, or fallen passions.

Also, another line of debate would center on what it means to be tempted. Allen Roesch's book, "Another Jesus Even Among Conservative Adventists?" does a wonderful job of explaining how Christ was tempted and how He suffered when tempted in the chapter "Temptation Is ...". The parallels between corruption, passion, and lust are all tied in with the concept of temptation in relationship to the character. Temptation is not limited to what we desire but is found in any presentation where separation from God is the end result. I found it very helpful in understanding that there are two views on temption: The view the tempter presents, and the view the tempted perceives. Eve "transgressed being deceived" would mean that she perceived and accepted the view the tempter presented. Adam's transgression resulted after perceiving Eve's fallen state, and deciding to join her in transgression rather than waiting to discover God's remedy for his perceived loss. And where Jesus overcame temptation is that He perceived the reality and chose to wait for, and accomplish, God's remedy -- though it meant enduring separation from the Father's love while hanging on the cross as our Substitute.

"This was to Christ just what the Bible declares it to be--a temptation. Before His sight the tempter held the kingdoms of the world. As Satan saw them, they possessed great external grandeur. But Christ saw them in a different aspect, just as they were--earthly dominions under the power of a tyrant. He saw humanity full of woe, suffering under the oppressive power of Satan. He saw the earth defiled by hatred, revenge, malice, lust, and murder. He saw fiends in the possession of the bodies and souls of men" (MS 33, 1911). 5BC 1083.

"Christ's mission could be fulfilled only through suffering. Before Him was a life of sorrow, hardship, and conflict, and an ignominious death. He must bear the sins of the whole world. He must endure separation from His Father's love. Now the tempter offered to yield up the power he had usurped. Christ might deliver Himself from the dreadful future by acknowledging the supremacy of Satan. But to do this was to yield the victory in the great controversy. It was in seeking to exalt himself above the Son of God that Satan had sinned in heaven. Should he prevail now, it would be the triumph of rebellion."   Desire of Ages, p. 129.

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Raven on September 20, 2008, 05:26:24 AM

Also, another line of debate would center on what it means to be tempted. Allen Roesch's book, "Another Jesus Even Among Conservative Adventists?" does a wonderful job of explaining how Christ was tempted and how He suffered when tempted in the chapter "Temptation Is ...". The parallels between corruption, passion, and lust are all tied in with the concept of temptation in relationship to the character. Temptation is not limited to what we desire but is found in any presentation where separation from God is the end result. I found it very helpful in understanding that there are two views on temption: The view the tempter presents, and the view the tempted perceives. Eve "transgressed being deceived" would mean that she perceived and accepted the view the tempter presented. Adam's transgression resulted after perceiving Eve's fallen state, and deciding to join her in transgression rather than waiting to discover God's remedy for his perceived loss. And where Jesus overcame temptation is that He perceived the reality and chose to wait for, and accomplish, God's remedy -- though it meant enduring separation from the Father's love while hanging on the cross as our Substitute.



You brought out a very important aspect of this issue:  the difference between Eve's sin and Adam's.  Eve was deceived--she believed a lie and disbelieved God's truth.  Adam sinned in full knowledge that what he was doing was wrong.  He was not deceived.  He sinned deliberately, after weighing his options.  Jesus, on the other had, was not deceived because His mind was fortified with the truth from Scripture, as is evidenced by His response to Satan, "It is written."  According to the SOP we can resist temptation in the same way.  His temptation were far greater than ours can be, partly because we don't have a divine nature that we can tap into to serve ourselves.  That was a constant temptation for Jesus, one which we can never fully understand.  So what is our problem?  1.  Our minds are not fortified with the truths of the Bible, and therefore we are deceived into sinning.  2.  We can't see the forest for the trees--the temporary "pleasure" of the sin we are contemplating overwhelms the reality of the eternal world.  3. We rationalize our way around the sin to make it appear acceptable.  4.  We don't avoid "Satan's ground."  We "flirt" with temptation, not trying to avoid it.  Joseph ran from temptation, rather than argue with the temptress.  We are not always so wise.  5.  ?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 20, 2008, 11:59:08 PM
As Pastor O said, both sides of this controversy can point to Ellen White quotes to support their positions.

I would like to see the evolution of the quotes as time went on. Because the quotes I see favoring the evangelical position of an unfallen nature quoted in multiple places above are post 1900. To her credit, she brought the SDA church to a more orthodox position with regard to the Trinity and the full deity of Christ. I find it interesting that even her husband James, and many of the pioneers such as Uriah Smith held the Jehovah's Witness position of Arianism, or that Christ was a created being.

I think it is only right to examine all the quotations and see when they were written. She certainly grew spiritually and changed some positions as time went on.

We must also examine the scriptural quotations that are pertinent to this discussion.

When Adam fell, the whole human race fell and needed to be redeemed.

Everyone who is ever born into this world must be born again. We are all born with a sinful nature because of Adam's fall. When David said "In sin did my mother conceive me", David was not talking about the act of intercourse resulting in conception that was sin, he meant that he was a sinner from birth.

Jesus was different from us in that He DID NOT need to be BORN AGAIN. He was not born with original sin, since God the Holy Spirit was His Father. He was uniquely born of a virgin.

Just because it was possible for Jesus to die does not prove he had our sinful nature.

Romans 5:12-19 expresses some of what I tried to express above, except much better :

12  "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL MEN for that all have sinned:

 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the OFFENCE OF ONE many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by ONE MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 17For if by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by ONE, Jesus Christ.)

 18Therefore as by the OFFENCE OF ONE judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE the FREE GIFT came upon all men unto justification of life.

 19For as by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so by the OBEDIENCE OF ONE shall many be made righteous."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 21, 2008, 12:26:21 AM
I find this scriptural quotation very interesting:

1 Peter 1:18,19 (King James Version)

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now why did the Holy Spirit inspire Peter to to use both terms "blemish" and "spot"?

In the sacrificial system, it was required to have a lamb without blemish as in Exodus 12:5:

5"Your lamb shall be without BLEMISH, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blemish would certainly typify an inherited defect.

So, as Peter said, Jesus, the Lamb, had no BLEMISH, or inherited defect or inherited sin, and He had no "SPOT", or external sin.

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 21, 2008, 07:14:48 AM
Stan, you are making a huge mistake in your approach here. First, you are equating blemish with internal sin and spot with external sin. In doing so, you are continuing in the error of Augustine by maintaining that having fallen nature is in itself a sin. Secondly, you are choosing to ignore what Ellen White has written, which we have already shared with you, as though she may have presented a faulty concept early in her ministry but grew into the truth which you claim to hold. Such is just simply not so. Thirdly, you appear to hold to another error that if Jesus could be tempted by His flesh that somehow it would be sin in Him making Him less than perfect. You have not shown any where from SOP that Ellen White ever wrote that Jesus came in "unfallen flesh", nor have you supplied anything that would prove that all temptation must come from a desire for sin.

Look again at what I first posted to you:
"But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."  -- The Desire of Ages, p. 117.

"Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed."   --The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

"Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours."   --The Desire of Ages, p. 311.

"The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience."   The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.

Please note that the sinlessness of Christ was due to the sinlessness of His "spiritual nature" in that it "was free from every taint of sin". And that the only way Christ could be corrupted was if "He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God." Manuscript Release, Vol. 16,  No. 12111--3, 4, p. 182, 183.

We should "be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in [Jesus] an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."   Vol. 13, Manuscript Releases, p. 18.

When we consider the fallen human nature which Christ took for us, we should remember how sin has weakened our resistance to withstand temptation, and the only way Christ could prove we might resist temptation in His strength is for Him to demonstrate perfect obedience in the weakness of our fallen flesh.

"It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."   Desire of Ages, p. 48.

The determined resistance to this understanding of the gospel can only be called unbelief in the promises of God to give strength to us as we face the temptations which in no ways are as strong as what Jesus had to face on our behalf.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 21, 2008, 07:22:46 AM
One of the most discerning statements I have heard on the subject was made by Leslie Hardinge at the Redwood campmeeting in Northern California in 1995 or 96. I listened to the tapes several times during the summer. The seminar was not on the nature of Christ, but he made this comment as an aside.

He said that it wasn't difficult to solve the question of whether Christ took Adam's prefall or post fall nature. "Adam was not subject to death before he sinned. He would have lived forever had he not sinned. When Adam sinned, he bacame subject to death. Jesus was subject to death from the day he was born." (paraphrased)

That is evidenced by the flight into Egypt to avoid Herod's/Satan's  plan to kill him.
Jesus could have sinned. He could have failed. Or He could have called it off in the weakness of His humanity. The government and the character of God and the security and happiness of the universe was dependent on His victory over sin and Satan.  Not to mention the salvation of mankind.
How can we not throw our crowns at His feet?

The problem with that is threefold.

#1 It is totally a no brainer to say that Jesus took a body that was subject to death. Who with even the slightest degree of understanding would need to be told that Jesus had a body that suffered, became hungry, felt pain, and died?

#2 Never does the Testimony of Jesus state that Jesus took Adam's physical nature after the fall. While we obviously know that He did take that nature as well it seems very interesting that this qualification and restriction is not made. How easy it would have been to simply say that Christ took Adam's fallen physical nature and his unfallen human nature. Christ took Adams nature after the fall....period. At the same time He did not sin even in a thought...period. To think that Jesus could not taken all of Adam's nature after the fall and yet not sin is to refute that the 144,000 will have reach a point to where they have Adam's full fallen nature and yet do not sin. A misunderstanding about this necessarily excuses a the 144, 000 from reaching a point to where they live without a mediator for sin. This breaks down the sanctuary message and refutes God's claim that the law can and will be kept...without reservation. Jesus proved that the 144,000 can keep the law even with Adam's fallen human nature. Then Jesus will go one step further and prove with the 144,000 that the law can be kept without exception even by those who had cultivated sin in their lives. While Jesus had to stop short of proving this in His own life because He is the spotless and perfect Lamb He indeed can and will prove through the people He will translate alive that even with a past of cultivated sin the law can be kept.

#3 If Christ took Adam's perfect nature before the fall (which is never stated in the SOP) then Jesus walked a totally different path than we. He simply proved that had Adam not fallen but was placed in the world today he had no excuse to sin. The problem is that we do not have Adam's nature before the fall therefore under this scenario Jesus is the pattern for unfallen Adam but not our pattern. One could rightfully argue that Jesus had one up on fallen humanity because He took a perfect prefall nature. Indeed Jesus would be our pattern if we all had Adam's pre fall perfect nature.

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 21, 2008, 07:34:22 AM
It is dangerous to believe in original sin. In other words that a newborn baby is guilty of Adam's sin. While a baby suffers the consequenses of Adam's sin and because he has a fallen anture he will sin as soon as it is possible to do so he is not guilty for what Adam did.

In no other place does any rational human believe in this concept. We never claim an unborn baby is quilty when the father robs a bank. The baby will no doubt inherit a penalty because the father is in jail and not able to support the family but the baby is not guiltly of the crime.

The Catholic concept of original sin creates all kinds of rationalizations for sin and undermines any necessitiy to depart from it.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 21, 2008, 10:16:52 AM
The problem with that is threefold.

#1 It is totally a no brainer to say that Jesus took a body that was subject to death. Who with even the slightest degree of understanding would need to be told that Jesus had a body that suffered, became hungry, felt pain, and died?

#2 Never does the Testimony of Jesus state that Jesus took Adam's physical nature after the fall. While we obviously know that He did take that nature as well it seems very interesting that this qualification and restriction is not made. How easy it would have been to simply say that Christ took Adam's fallen physical nature and his unfallen human nature. Christ took Adams nature after the fall....period. At the same time He did not sin even in a thought...period. To think that Jesus could not taken all of Adam's nature after the fall and yet not sin is to refute that the 144,000 will have reach a point to where they have Adam's full fallen nature and yet do not sin. A misunderstanding about this necessarily excuses a the 144, 000 from reaching a point to where they live without a mediator for sin. This breaks down the sanctuary message and refutes God's claim that the law can and will be kept...without reservation. Jesus proved that the 144,000 can keep the law even with Adam's fallen human nature. Then Jesus will go one step further and prove with the 144,000 that the law can be kept without exception even by those who had cultivated sin in their lives. While Jesus had to stop short of proving this in His own life because He is the spotless and perfect Lamb He indeed can and will prove through the people He will translate alive that even with a past of cultivated sin the law can be kept.

#3 If Christ took Adam's perfect nature before the fall (which is never stated in the SOP) then Jesus walked a totally different path than we. He simply proved that had Adam not fallen but was placed in the world today he had no excuse to sin. The problem is that we do not have Adam's nature before the fall therefore under this scenario Jesus is the pattern for unfallen Adam but not our pattern. One could rightfully argue that Jesus had one up on fallen humanity because He took a perfect prefall nature. Indeed Jesus would be our pattern if we all had Adam's pre fall perfect nature.


CP, I don't understand what your argument is about here. Hardinges statement was simply that since Jesus was subject to death it is clear that He did not take Adam's pre fall nature but He took His post fall nature. I think you may have misread the statement or missed its implications.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 21, 2008, 03:00:43 PM
It is dangerous to believe in original sin. In other words that a newborn baby is guilty of Adam's sin. While a baby suffers the consequenses of Adam's sin and because he has a fallen anture he will sin as soon as it is possible to do so he is not guilty for what Adam did.

In no other place does any rational human believe in this concept. We never claim an unborn baby is quilty when the father robs a bank. The baby will no doubt inherit a penalty because the father is in jail and not able to support the family but the baby is not guiltly of the crime.

The Catholic concept of original sin creates all kinds of rationalizations for sin and undermines any necessitiy to depart from it.

Colporteur,

How many who have raised children doubt the doctrine of original sin? You don't have to teach a child to lie or be self-centered.

David the Psalmist clearly taught that he was sinful from birth.

Please deal with the passage from Romans 5 quoted above and repeated below which is from the KJV and not the Catholic Bible (although it is there too. There are doctrines we all hold in common as Christians):

12  "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL MEN for that all have sinned:

 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the OFFENCE OF ONE many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by ONE MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 17For if by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by ONE, Jesus Christ.)

 18Therefore as by the OFFENCE OF ONE judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE the FREE GIFT came upon all men unto justification of life.

 19For as by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so by the OBEDIENCE OF ONE shall many be made righteous."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what could be clearer than a thus saith the Lord through the great Apostle stated above.

We may not like the doctrine of original sin, but that is what the Bible teaches as David and Paul both agree.

Adam's sin IMPUTED guilt to the entire human race. However, Adam's sin, from which WE AS SINNERS needed to be redeemed from was not IMPUTED to Christ, otherwise, He would also have to be born again, which we know is impossible.

Christ came as the second Adam, living a perfect sinless life, thereby imputing that perfect life to the account of all who would be truly born of God, or born again as John 1:12,13 says:

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as Jesus said in John 5:24:

24"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HATH EVERLASTING LIFE, and SHALL NOT come into condemnation; but IS PASSED FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE."
------------------------------------------------------

This is the good news of the gospel! Jesus is saying that we can know NOW that we have eternal life and have passed from death to life. This is possible because Jesus has lived the perfect life in our place, and took the full penalty of our sins on the cross.

Believeing this gospel should not make anyone lax about obeying God. We live an obedient life in sheer gratitude for what Christ has already done for us. He also gives us the power to live a victorious Christian life through His indwelling Spirit.

Still in awe of His Amazing Grace!

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 21, 2008, 04:03:19 PM
Stan, the idea that babys are born guilty of sin makes no sense. God is reasonable and just. To follow the doctrine of original sin to its logical conclusion, would be that God will punish babies and very young children as sinners even though they had no understanding or conception of the law, or even the concept of right and wrong. Thats an insult to God's character. True, it does not take long for a new parent to notice the self centeredness and "selfishness" of a baby. They are born with a fallen nature with a pull towards sin. But God does not hold them guilty of sin until they are able to understand sufficiently to be accountable. Even man made laws don't hold babies and young children accountable. Lets not make God out to be meaner than we are.

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4) A baby has no understanding of the law.

"Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, but doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
A baby does not "knoweth to do good."

David's statement "In sin did my mother conceive me," was an acknowlegement that children inherit the sinful tendencies of their parents. 
He also said "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Ps 58: 3) This is obviously a bit of hyperbole to make the point that it does not take long for mankind to manifest sin. But they certainly do not go astray "as soon as they be born" nor are they actually born "speaking lies"
Job 14:4 also speaks to this: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"
These texts are talking about our fallen nature, they do not prove original sin.
 
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 21, 2008, 06:34:56 PM
Yes, Larry, I read the statement by L Hardinage too quickly.

I believe original sin feeds into the  error of Christ not taking Adam's post fall nature.  If having a fallen nature is accentually the same as sinning  then all would be guilty from the moment of conception. This error also promotes infant baptism and the idea of limbo for babies. One error leads to another and to another. A continuation of the error of original sin is that it is not our acts that are righteous or sinful but who we are. Therefore we can premeditively sin and continue in sin and presumptuously be righteous. If we are guilty of sin irrespective of whether or not we sin then it would follow that we can be righteous whether or not we sin. The bottom line in this is that it really does not make a whole lot of difference what we do in terms of obedience. Sanctification is only optional.There are so many variations of error that spring board out of the concept of original sin.

Sin is a choice. While a small child may exhibit selfish tendencies until they are able to grasp right and wrong they have not sinned in the sense of being accountable. I suppose if one wishes to call unaccountable tendencies before the age of accountability...sin... but then as you have quoted..."Sin is the transgression of the law." For a baby to cry because he is wet or hungry is not selfishness. To inherit a fallen nature  is not in itself sin but the results of another's sin.

    It could be argued that animals too have inherited fallen natures from their original offspring as the result of Adam's sin. While it is not God's will that a lion kills a lamb the lion is not guilty of sin anymore than a baby is quilty of sin. They both simply inherited a dispostion that is not according to God's will and design. The animal is not guilty because he has not the mental capability to choose to act against the fallen nature. The same is true of the baby. Of course the difference is that the baby reaches a point to where he realizes what he does is wrong. This is not true with an animal and their lower mental capacity.
     
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 21, 2008, 07:03:06 PM
As Pastor O said, both sides of this controversy can point to Ellen White quotes to support their positions.

I think it is only right to examine all the quotations and see when they were written. She certainly grew spiritually and changed some positions as time went on.

We must also examine the scriptural quotations that are pertinent to this discussion.

When Adam fell, the whole human race fell and needed to be redeemed.

cp>>> The human race inherited fallen natures but we did not fall until we acted upon that nature and sinned<<<

Everyone who is ever born into this world must be born again. We are all born with a sinful nature because of Adam's fall. When David said "In sin did my mother conceive me", David was not talking about the act of intercourse resulting in conception that was sin, he meant that he was a sinner from birth.

cp>>> No, what the verse means is that both Davids parents were sinners living in a sinful world. It does not mean that David was a sinner before he sinned.<<< Are people drug dealers before they choose to deal drugs? No.  Is a man a bank robber 50 years before he robs a bank? No

Jesus was different from us in that He DID NOT need to be BORN AGAIN. He was not born with original sin, since God the Holy Spirit was His Father. He was uniquely born of a virgin.

cp>>> Where does it say that God the Father is the Holy Spirit?<<< Jesus was also born of Mary but correct He was not born with original sin. Neither are we. True Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit therefore the Holy Spirit was the active agent involved in the conception. By the same token we are sealed by the Holy Spirit but the actual seal is the Sabbath as it contains the three vital elements contained in every seal.<<<

Just because it was possible for Jesus to die does not prove he had our sinful nature.

Jesus had two parents and two natures. A human nature and a divine nature. The divine nature had total dominion over the fallen nature. So it may be with us.<<<

Romans 5:12-19 expresses some of what I tried to express above, except much better :

12  "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL MEN for that all have sinned:

cp>>> the fisrt part of the verse is obviously simply referring to our inheriting perishable flesh. Animals also inheritedf the same because of Adam's sin but they are not sinners because they are incapable of sin. The same is true of a baby in the womb.  The statement "all have sinned" is simply prefiguring the obvious fact that all will sin. People that have not yet been concieved have noty sinned but when they are born and live they will have sinned. It is as though this verse is a reflected back from the time of judgment.<<<

 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

cp>>> And sin is the transgression of the law. We sin as we chose to sin not as our parents sin on our behalf.<<<

 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the OFFENCE OF ONE many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by ONE MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

cp>>> Again this is obviously referring to effects of a fallen nature which will result in comitting sin.<<<

 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 17For if by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by ONE, Jesus Christ.)

 18Therefore as by the OFFENCE OF ONE judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE the FREE GIFT came upon all men unto justification of life.

cp>>> Yes, all men reap what Adam sowed in transgression just like a baby may not be well sustained if his father is in prison for murder. The baby reap the father's sin though the baby is not guilty of sin nore can be as it was not his choice.

 19For as by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so by the OBEDIENCE OF ONE shall many be made righteous."

cp>>>There is no tense as to when we are made sinners. Your intepretation here Stan leads to universal justification, optional sanctification and salvation in sin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 21, 2008, 08:12:28 PM
Stan, the idea that babys are born guilty of sin makes no sense. God is reasonable and just. To follow the doctrine of original sin to its logical conclusion, would be that God will punish babies and very young children as sinners even though they had no understanding or conception of the law, or even the concept of right and wrong. Thats an insult to God's character. True, it does not take long for a new parent to notice the self centeredness and "selfishness" of a baby. They are born with a fallen nature with a pull towards sin. But God does not hold them guilty of sin until they are able to understand sufficiently to be accountable. Even man made laws don't hold babies and young children accountable. Lets not make God out to be meaner than we are.

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4) A baby has no understanding of the law.

"Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, but doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
A baby does not "knoweth to do good."

David's statement "In sin did my mother conceive me," was an acknowlegement that children inherit the sinful tendencies of their parents. 
He also said "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Ps 58: 3) This is obviously a bit of hyperbole to make the point that it does not take long for mankind to manifest sin. But they certainly do not go astray "as soon as they be born" nor are they actually born "speaking lies"
Job 14:4 also speaks to this: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"
These texts are talking about our fallen nature, they do not prove original sin.
 

Larry,

I agree that a child is not going to answer for sins committed before whatever age the child becomes accountable, and only God knows when that is. God will always be perfectly just. But that doesn't take away from what Romans 5:19 says clearly:

19For as by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so by the OBEDIENCE OF ONE shall many be made righteous."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam's fall made us sinners, but Christ's obedience makes us righteous, if we only trust on Him.

Here is the official statement fundamental 7 of the SDA church:

7. Nature of Man:
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants SHARE THIS FALLEN NATURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts 17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, did Jesus SHARE OUR FALLEN NATURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES?  The same as we who are fallen Adam's descendants?

If Jesus inherited exactly the same fallen nature as we did, then it would become necessary for Jesus to be born again. Fallen beings had to be redeemed by a sinless substitute.

I have no problem with the fundamental belief statement above, and it possibly may be interpreted in different ways.

I was always taught in SDA schools that we were born with original sin, but others may have been taught different.

The majority of the Christian church through hundreds of years have interpreted Romans 5 as meaning that Adam imputed sin to the human race, but Christ, the second Adam redeemed us from this curse.

Praise God indeed for providing us with so great a Substitute!

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 21, 2008, 08:55:47 PM
Stan, I can see that this it all comes down to how we choose to interpret Romans 5:19. I agree with Cp that making a mistake here can lead to confusion and error in understanding the nature of Christ, and a lot of other things as well. 

I believe that the correct way to interpret the text is that all were "made sinners" by being born with a fallen nature with an inborn inclination towards sin that could never be resisted without the power of the Holy Spirit. Without Christ, our destiny was to sin. I don't believe that it means we were born guilty at birth.

Praise God that we do have a Savior "who is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Heb. 7:25

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on September 22, 2008, 09:22:43 AM
Sometimes try to think of it this way.....   

sin is a disease that we are all born with... it is the fallen nature of Adam.  But the symptoms of the disease are sins that are committed by us that can be repented of through the grace of God.   Jesus died for our repented sins and sins of ignorance and for the disease of sin set forth by Adam's fall and redeemed through Jesus.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 22, 2008, 10:50:31 AM
I find this scriptural quotation very interesting:

1 Peter 1:18,19 (King James Version)

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now why did the Holy Spirit inspire Peter to to use both terms "blemish" and "spot"?

In the sacrificial system, it was required to have a lamb without blemish as in Exodus 12:5:

5"Your lamb shall be without BLEMISH, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blemish would certainly typify an inherited defect.

So, as Peter said, Jesus, the Lamb, had no BLEMISH, or inherited defect or inherited sin, and He had no "SPOT", or external sin.

Stan

So, Stan, you believe that some lambs were born with fallen natures because they had spots and blemishes, but the ones which were born without spot or blemish were born with unfallen natures? I doubt you believe this, but one must be careful to understand just how far one is to go with the symbolism provided by Scripture. On the other hand, maybe you do! After all, the logic you bring to the Scriptures you just quoted regarding lambs is identical with the ones regarding priests. Maybe you believe that some priests born with blemishes were of the fallen nature, while those without had unfallen natures. After all, God did say in Leviticus 21:21,  "No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God."

But, if you believe that Jesus was born of fallen flesh without defect in the sense that He was not blind, crippled, or leprous, and that He had an unfallen spiritual nature just as Ellen White wrote, then you would have no conflict with the Scriptures and her writings.

Still, if you wish to believe that Jesus could condemn sin in the flesh while here on this earth in an unfallen human nature, what has He done that unfallen angels could not do?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 22, 2008, 11:31:10 AM

Now, did Jesus SHARE OUR FALLEN NATURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES?  The same as we who are fallen Adam's descendants?

If Jesus inherited exactly the same fallen nature as we did, then it would become necessary for Jesus to be born again. Fallen beings had to be redeemed by a sinless substitute.

cp>>>Jesus shared our nature but not its consequences. The reason for this is because though He took our nature He did not fall. The difference is that Christ was born with the divine nature ruling over the fallen nature. We are born with the fallen nature ruling therefore we sin. The 144,000 will also have the divine nature ruling over the fallen nature. The reason why we fall spiritually is because there is nothing to inhibit us from acting upon the fallen nature until we are sanctified and also have the divine nature ruling over the fallen nature.. The reason that Jesus had no propensity for sin is because the extent to which the divine nature was in control. It's not that Christ's fallen nature was different than ours its the fact that Jesus was  born also with a divine nature that was in full control while we grow into this state in the sanctification process. When Mrs. White said Jesus had no propensity to sin I believe this was because His divine nature had in effect smothered the fallen nature, the old man He inherited and took upon Himself was kept in the grave, also that He had no propensity for sin because of any cultivated sin. In other words He had no propensity for sin within the nature that He chose to be dominated by or led by.. the divine nature. <<<

I have no problem with the fundamental belief statement above, and it possibly may be interpreted in different ways.

I was always taught in SDA schools that we were born with original sin, but others may have been taught different.

 cp>>>Many SDA schools can be a dangerous place to be. I was not taught in any SDA school but in the school of Christ<<<


The majority of the Christian church through hundreds of years have interpreted Romans 5 as meaning that Adam imputed sin to the human race, but Christ, the second Adam redeemed us from this curse.

 cp>>>The very same can be said of  Eccl. 12:7  where it is believed that when the verse says "the spirit shall return to God who gave it" is thought to mean the immortal soul  returns to God at death. The same can be said about  Rev. 1:10  " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." where the majority of the Christian church did and does think that the Lord's day is Sunday when there is not a single verse in all of Scripture that would indicate that the Lord's day is other than the 7th day Sabbath. There is a long list of errors that the churches have held for centuries and still does. Adam imputed a fallen nature and a body subject to pain and death to the human race. He did not impute quilt. He only imputed  sin to us in that our natures are geared that direction so we naturally sin. Sin is a choice..our choice... even though we are somewhat ignorant of the full ramifications and fruit of sin. While we have not chosen our natures we can chose a different nature and we can chose to have victory over sin if we are willing to accept the conditions to do so.<<<


Praise God indeed for providing us with so great a Substitute!

cp>>> Very true. He took everything we have short of sin.<<<

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Richard OFfill on September 22, 2008, 07:39:03 PM
I have been traveling. I actually read the posts so far, howbeit rapidly. This topic always lends itself to a nice discussion.

I must confess that (maybe this has already been rebutted) I believe that Jesus was not born with a sinful nature. If this had been the case he himself would have needed a Savior.

It seems to me that there are embedded  some problems in this discussion and one is that there is a regular use of the word, "our example". While this is surely the case it is not were it all begins. He came first not to be our example but to be  our substitute. To suggest that we need do only what he did is to suggest that the problem of sin is solved by a kind of formula. If we are saved by a formula then we didn't need him only the formula.

It troubles me through the years to hear from time to time that if he wasn't just like me then he couldn't have been my Savior. I believe he is our Savior in every way without being like me in every way. Just as soon as we say that he had no propensity to sin then it becomes impossible to say that he was like us. As has been mentioned earlier, he needed no Savior inasmuch as he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He was the "holy thing" from His conception, something that no baby has ever been. This means that his nature from birth was unlike anyone from birth on has ever been.

While the last generation will have victory over every sin and besetment, I don't believe it is safe to say that at that time they will be in respect to holiness past depending on Jesus anymore. It seems to me that the words of Paul that in Him we live and move and have our being is for eternity and not just until the close of probation.

To me it is (hang on now) not doing what he did but accepting what he did for us not only for now but forever. We can study the Bible everyday and pray all day, but it is not doing what he  did, but receiving what he did through the Holy Spirit into our being and thus being changed from the ground up. It is impossible that he had to be born again. The fact that we do need to be born again makes Him different than us. As I have studied, it is clear that Jesus had to begin where Adam began for the simple reason that to come at a point after that time would have been took late. To me the issue was one and that is did Adam have to do what he did? Christ beginning where Adam began says no. When I take all the quotes and all the texts on the subject I just conclude that just was a "third kind". None like Him before and none like Him after.

I personally fear that we may try so hard to make him like us and simply try to follow his "example" that we in reality are simply trying to pull ourselves  up by our boot straps and in effect trying to save ourselves by our own effort ie. righteousness by our own - not his -  works.While He is indeed our example, Praise God, He is much, much more.

 When a person who you would know heard me express what I have just expressed  He told me that I didn't believe in victory over sin. I told him that in spite of my conviction I am not a closet Catholic.  I do believe in victorious Christian living -Christ in us the hope of Glory. He said that I must be the only one. No, though I am one, there are many like me!

Well, discussing this topic among friends, is nice. However, it sometimes reminds me of the man who was telling a friend that his dad used to wake him up every day by throwing the cat on the bed. His friend wanted to know what was wrong with that. "I slept with the dog."

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 23, 2008, 12:57:56 AM
So, Stan, you believe that some lambs were born with fallen natures because they had spots and blemishes, but the ones which were born without spot or blemish were born with unfallen natures? I doubt you believe this, but one must be careful to understand just how far one is to go with the symbolism provided by Scripture. On the other hand, maybe you do! After all, the logic you bring to the Scriptures you just quoted regarding lambs is identical with the ones regarding priests. Maybe you believe that some priests born with blemishes were of the fallen nature, while those without had unfallen natures. After all, God did say in Leviticus 21:21,  "No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God."

But, if you believe that Jesus was born of fallen flesh without defect in the sense that He was not blind, crippled, or leprous, and that He had an unfallen spiritual nature just as Ellen White wrote, then you would have no conflict with the Scriptures and her writings.

Still, if you wish to believe that Jesus could condemn sin in the flesh while here on this earth in an unfallen human nature, what has He done that unfallen angels could not do?

Deep Waters,

All I can tell you is this regarding the scripture cited:

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is true that not all analogies are perfect. But I do find it interesting that Peter used both BLEMISH (which in the Passover Lamb meant no inherited defect) and SPOT to describe our Passover Lamb who is Christ.

 I will say that this text proves that Christ was different from me. He was without blemish or spot, but I am a sinner redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Soli Deo Gloria
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 23, 2008, 01:01:41 AM
I have been traveling. I actually read the posts so far, howbeit rapidly. This topic always lends itself to a nice discussion.

I must confess that (maybe this has already been rebutted) I believe that Jesus was not born with a sinful nature. If this had been the case he himself would have needed a Savior.

It seems to me that there are embedded  some problems in this discussion and one is that there is a regular use of the word, "our example". While this is surely the case it is not were it all begins. He came first not to be our example but to be  our substitute. To suggest that we need do only what he did is to suggest that the problem of sin is solved by a kind of formula. If we are saved by a formula then we didn't need him only the formula.

It troubles me through the years to hear from time to time that if he wasn't just like me then he couldn't have been my Savior. I believe he is our Savior in every way without being like me in every way. Just as soon as we say that he had no propensity to sin then it becomes impossible to say that he was like us. As has been mentioned earlier, he needed no Savior inasmuch as he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He was the "holy thing" from His conception, something that no baby has ever been. This means that his nature from birth was unlike anyone from birth on has ever been.

While the last generation will have victory over every sin and besetment, I don't believe it is safe to say that at that time they will be in respect to holiness past depending on Jesus anymore. It seems to me that the words of Paul that in Him we live and move and have our being is for eternity and not just until the close of probation.

To me it is (hang on now) not doing what he did but accepting what he did for us not only for now but forever. We can study the Bible everyday and pray all day, but it is not doing what he  did, but receiving what he did through the Holy Spirit into our being and thus being changed from the ground up. It is impossible that he had to be born again. The fact that we do need to be born again makes Him different than us. As I have studied, it is clear that Jesus had to begin where Adam began for the simple reason that to come at a point after that time would have been took late. To me the issue was one and that is did Adam have to do what he did? Christ beginning where Adam began says no. When I take all the quotes and all the texts on the subject I just conclude that just was a "third kind". None like Him before and none like Him after.

I personally fear that we may try so hard to make him like us and simply try to follow his "example" that we in reality are simply trying to pull ourselves  up by our boot straps and in effect trying to save ourselves by our own effort ie. righteousness by our own - not his -  works.While He is indeed our example, Praise God, He is much, much more.

 When a person who you would know heard me express what I have just expressed  He told me that I didn't believe in victory over sin. I told him that in spite of my conviction I am not a closet Catholic.  I do believe in victorious Christian living -Christ in us the hope of Glory. He said that I must be the only one. No, though I am one, there are many like me!

Well, discussing this topic among friends, is nice. However, it sometimes reminds me of the man who was telling a friend that his dad used to wake him up every day by throwing the cat on the bed. His friend wanted to know what was wrong with that. "I slept with the dog."



Excellent post Pastor. I agree with you completely.

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 23, 2008, 01:12:29 AM
Here are some thoughts on this topic that someone sent me by email, and they are not original with me, but I thought I would share them:

The original sin was first a broken relationship. To define sin
merely as
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 23, 2008, 06:24:20 AM
"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. . . ." Amazing Grace page 42

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, he began where the first Adam began. Willingly he passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure." {Youth Instructor, June 2, 1898 par. 1}

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God, and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began." 8 Manuscript Release p. 40


Pastor, I did not respond to your post before now because I needed to prayerfully ponder your point. And now I understand that there is an immense misunderstanding on the phrase, "He began where the first Adam began".

Where did Adam begin? He was in the flush and vigor of adult manhood. Adam was not born as Christ was born. Adam was not surrounded wickedness and evil influences, that is until Eve tempted him to join her in transgression and rebellion.

Where did Jesus begin? As a baby. His personal experience was more akin to that of Cain, Abel, or Seth in that He experienced the slow development of the powers of manhood. He was surrounded by wickedness, and yet from early in His childhood He had personal accountability in His character development.

So we must ask ourselves, "What was it that Christ was beginning?" He was beginning His representation of the fallen human race. And, as previously quoted, He began with a fallen nature that was uncorrupted. Fallen in that it was human, uncorrupted because His spiritual nature was pure. And that was the only difference between Him and us, for we have a natural tendency to yield to the temptations of Satan.

What brings God the greatest glory? If Jesus had come with unfallen flesh, He would have proved nothing more than the unfallen angels of Heaven could prove. Without sinful flesh, He would not have been able to condemn sin in the flesh. We would have no example of how to obtain victory over sin with the flesh you and I have. Our claims to victory over sin through Jesus would ring hollow.

You say that if Jesus had sinful flesh He would then need a Savior Himself. That is a very Augustinian approach to sin. If one clings to it, they might as well accept that Mary didn't have sinful flesh. If Mary didn't have sinful flesh, then neither did her mother. If her mother didn't have sinful flesh, then, well the ultimate conclusion is that neither did Eve.

I find it rather interesting that Adventists used to be united on this doctrine. In one of his sermons A.T. Jones used the very logic expressed in the previous paragraph. But only in the 1900's have we departed from what was believed by our pioneering fathers. Questions on Doctrine was the first published work in our denominational history that divided us as a church. We must get back on the platform of Truth, or we will be found among those who kept not the faith of Jesus.

Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 23, 2008, 06:28:37 AM
Deep Waters,

All I can tell you is this regarding the scripture cited:

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is true that not all analogies are perfect. But I do find it interesting that Peter used both BLEMISH (which in the Passover Lamb meant no inherited defect) and SPOT to describe our Passover Lamb who is Christ.

 I will say that this text proves that Christ was different from me. He was without blemish or spot, but I am a sinner redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Soli Deo Gloria

Stan, we both have our stance on this passage. You just choose to insert your own interpretation, based on the weakness of Augustinian theology, to support your belief. Why do you avoid the more important question regarding the faith of Jesus? How much greater is His faith in His Father if His human nature were fallen, though His spiritual nature was uncorrupted, than if He came in unfallen flesh?

Jesus' spiritual nature was without spot or blemish. And His physical nature was without lameness, deafness, blindness, or leprosy. But that does not mean that He had unfallen flesh.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on September 23, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
Jesus came in the fallen state of Adam (flesh), and that is the only way that He could fix what had been done.  But His Spirit was unfallen.... sanctified if you will.... and he glorified the Father by doing His will always.  This is what God has offered to us...  to become sanctified in Spirit but we will always have the fallen flesh with us until just before the second coming.  But inside, our sanctified spirit will love and keep the faith of Jesus and glorify Him in the last days.  This is what the angels are waiting to see....  that fallen man can be restored to the image of Christ in the last days.  This is what Satan said was not possible.

In a sense I can agree that Jesus was a unique and special kind in that He paved the way for us and did what no one else could do in fulfilling the requirement of God's broken law.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Raven on September 23, 2008, 12:36:36 PM
The subject of the nature of Christ could be debated from now until the second coming, but we will still not understand it fully, or even come to a common understanding among ourselves.  The bottom line is that He took our nature in a way that allowed Him to fulfill the requirements necessary to save us from being lost eternally.  He overcame sin in the same way that we must do it--through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.  We cannot use the excuse that He had it easier than we do.  On the contrary, He had it much harder because the devil's eternal destiny hinged on whether or not he could defeat Jesus.  And we have been promised all the help we need to overcome as He overcame.

I think we need to keep it as simple as possible--so a child can understand it.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 25, 2008, 07:58:37 AM
I have been traveling. I actually read the posts so far, howbeit rapidly. This topic always lends itself to a nice discussion....

Well, discussing this topic among friends, is nice. However, it sometimes reminds me of the man who was telling a friend that his dad used to wake him up every day by throwing the cat on the bed. His friend wanted to know what was wrong with that. "I slept with the dog."

So, which character do you most identify with? The father who tossed the cat on the bed and then walked away perhaps?

When I was a teenager and worked for my grandfather, I sometimes tried to sleep in as a means to avoid going to work. My grandfather would hang a three foot long rail from the rafters and bang it with a metal pipe. The noise was atrocious, but I knew if I kept pretending to sleep he would tire and go away.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 25, 2008, 06:42:11 PM
Attempting to keep it simple like Raven said I think the confusion comes in where some think it impossible to have a fallen nature and not fall. Those who are translated living will prove just that.They will still retain elements of the fallen nature but since the old man will be completely subdued they will not fall. Now, if this is the situation with fallen man who live 2000 years after Christ when man is at his weakest and Satan is at his keenest, why should we think that Christ could not have Adam's nature after the fall without falling? The 144,000 will have had a history of sin and by God's grace and sanctifying power reach a point of falling no longer. Now if those who have a history of cultivated sin can reach a point of falling no longer why should it seem impossible that Christ who was totally led by the divine nature could also have a fallen human nature and not sin?

Satan's claim is that the law cannot be kept. Many even in our church believe essentially the same and they look at the exterior of those around them as proof. Have you ever been asked if you have reached a point of translation? I have. Usually the intended point is that since you cannot claim you have attained you cannot say that it can or will be done by anyone. People who do this or say this are simply not believing God.

To understand that Christ took man's nature after the fall and to realize that God will and is taking men and women with fallen human natures and raising them up to a point approaching the experience Christ had in terms of the divine nature ruling....now this is to realize the power of God ! This is a statement in practice that has no rebuttal !  To simply prove in the game of life, that man with an unfallen nature need not have fallen is like playing a Queen when an Ace is available. To prove that essentially God with a body subject to pain could not be made to sin is so far above our experience on another plane as to not even be relevant to our situation. It might prove something to angels but little to us.
 
    I believe the bottom line in all this and why it does matter in terms of affecting our salvation is that to think consistently, if we believe contrary to what the Testimony of Jesus states, if we believe Jesus had a prefall nature and essentially no nature as we have, then we must believe that there is no evidence that we too can reach a point of not falling and that Jesus is truly not our pattern but a pattern for unfallen angels.  A high jumper will only shoot high enough to clear the bar. If the bar is set at 5ft then he will not jump 7ft. If 7 feet (not falling at all any longer)  is what it takes to win the medal in the final meet and we think the bar is set at 5ft we will not even come close to clearing the bar. We will lose the crown or at the very least be in grave risk of doing so. While we can claim and even think we do not take a light stance on sin and that we believe the last generation will not sin, our theology contradicts this with the prefall theology. There is grave risk of not truly believing what we think we believe. Until we have this clear in our minds there is an inner battle. One side is much more apt to win because it is so much the easier. We can hope to think we believe the SOP and still cling to a second opinion just in case we do not attain. By leaving that little escape hatch open in our dual theology we are very apt to move in that direction. Perhaps I started simple and made it complicated but dual thinking that contradicts within itself is extremely complicated.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 25, 2008, 07:19:08 PM
Can it be made any simpler than this?

     "What a contrast the second Adam presented as He entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan single-handed. Since the fall, the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ's advent to the earth. In order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He who knew no sin became sin for us. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that He might be qualified to reach man and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him."   Confrontation, pp. 32, 33. (This is the 1971 title for the EGW book published in 1878 by another title which I do not recall at this time.)

As I have studied this topic afresh with the faith of Jesus as my perspective, this wonderful plan of Salvation specifically glorifies God in that Jesus was made to be sin, became sin for us. He was made sin for us from His birth, and not merely a comparatively short time in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the the cross.

We should be careful what we teach about the nature of Christ so that we in no wise take the part of antichrist by denying in any fashion that Christ came as God manifest in the flesh. To do so robs God of His glory.

We also rob God of His glory when we substitute a counterfeit gospel to the world. This is what the Jews did by denying the deity of Christ. Are we not doing the same if we do not rightly teach the Truth as it is in Jesus regarding His humanity? Note the following:

".... They robbed God of His glory, and defrauded the world by a counterfeit of the gospel. They had refused to surrender themselves to God for the salvation of the world, and they became agents of Satan for its destruction." Desire of Ages, p. 36.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on September 25, 2008, 07:29:56 PM
Good, points and post. What spirit is it that does not believe that Jesus came in "human" flesh?

It has been said that if Jesus took our nature He would need a savior but wasn't Jesus both the Lamb  slain and placed on the altar and at the same time the High Priest and Mediator?

If Jesus took our sins upon Himself why should it seem strange that He take Adam's post fall nature as well ? If He could take the the sins of the whole human race upon Himself and yet with the darkening power of sin ..not comit sin... why is it so difficult to believe He took take a fallen nature and not fall? Once again the 144,000 will in effect have done that in their latter experience as they keep their eyes on the Perfect Pattern.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 26, 2008, 01:19:10 AM
Here are additional thoughts regarding the battle Christ fought on our behalf, which I quote because some who believe that Christ came in unfallen human nature also believe that Christ used His "almighty power":

     "When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart. But He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the 'Master of earth and sea and sky' that He reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down, and He says, 'I can of Mine own self do nothing.' John 5:30. He trusted in the Father's might. It was in faith--faith in God's love and care--that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God.
     "As Jesus rested by faith in the Father's care, so we are to rest in the care of our Saviour. If the disciples had trusted in Him, they would have been kept in peace. Their fear in the time of danger revealed their unbelief. In their efforts to save themselves, they forgot Jesus; and it was only when, in despair of self-dependence, they turned to Him that He could give them help."   Desire of Ages, p. 336.

     "The miracle of the loaves teaches a lesson of dependence upon God. When Christ fed the five thousand, the food was not nigh at hand. Apparently He had no means at His command. Here He was, with five thousand men, besides women and children, in the wilderness. He had not invited the large multitude to follow Him; they came without invitation or command; but He knew that after they had listened so long to His instruction, they would feel hungry and faint; for He was one with them in their need of food. They were far from home, and the night was close at hand. Many of them were without means to purchase food. He who for their sake had fasted forty days in the wilderness would not suffer them to return fasting to their homes. The providence of God had placed Jesus where He was; and He depended on His heavenly Father for the means to relieve the necessity."   Desire of Ages, p. 368.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Raven on September 26, 2008, 05:42:04 AM
Attempting to keep it simple like Raven said I think the confusion comes in where some think it impossible to have a fallen nature and not fall. Those who are translated living will prove just that.They will still retain elements of the fallen nature but since the old man will be completely subdued they will not fall. Now, if this is the situation with fallen man who live 2000 years after Christ when man is at his weakest and Satan is at his keenest, why should we think that Christ could not have Adam's nature after the fall without falling? The 144,000 will have had a history of sin and by God's grace and sanctifying power reach a point of falling no longer. Now if those who have a history of cultivated sin can reach a point of falling no longer why should it seem impossible that Christ who was totally led by the divine nature could also have a fallen human nature and not sin?

Satan's claim is that the law cannot be kept. Many even in our church believe essentially the same and they look at the exterior of those around them as proof. Have you ever been asked if you have reached a point of translation? I have. Usually the intended point is that since you cannot claim you have attained you cannot say that it can or will be done by anyone. People who do this or say this are simply not believing God.

To understand that Christ took man's nature after the fall and to realize that God will and is taking men and women with fallen human natures and raising them up to a point approaching the experience Christ had in terms of the divine nature ruling....now this is to realize the power of God ! This is a statement in practice that has no rebuttal !  To simply prove in the game of life, that man with an unfallen nature need not have fallen is like playing a Queen when an Ace is available. To prove that essentially God with a body subject to pain could not be made to sin is so far above our experience on another plane as to not even be relevant to our situation. It might prove something to angels but little to us.
 
    I believe the bottom line in all this and why it does matter in terms of affecting our salvation is that to think consistently, if we believe contrary to what the Testimony of Jesus states, if we believe Jesus had a prefall nature and essentially no nature as we have, then we must believe that there is no evidence that we too can reach a point of not falling and that Jesus is truly not our pattern but a pattern for unfallen angels.  A high jumper will only shoot high enough to clear the bar. If the bar is set at 5ft then he will not jump 7ft. If 7 feet (not falling at all any longer)  is what it takes to win the medal in the final meet and we think the bar is set at 5ft we will not even come close to clearing the bar. We will lose the crown or at the very least be in grave risk of doing so. While we can claim and even think we do not take a light stance on sin and that we believe the last generation will not sin, our theology contradicts this with the prefall theology. There is grave risk of not truly believing what we think we believe. Until we have this clear in our minds there is an inner battle. One side is much more apt to win because it is so much the easier. We can hope to think we believe the SOP and still cling to a second opinion just in case we do not attain. By leaving that little escape hatch open in our dual theology we are very apt to move in that direction. Perhaps I started simple and made it complicated but dual thinking that contradicts within itself is extremely complicated.

Very well stated, cp.  With what you and DW have said, I don't see how there could be any more debate on the subject.  It makes perfect sense, and agrees with Scripture.  And, I think it's simple enough that a child could understand--well except maybe for the part about the queen and the ace.  :wink:

The only reason I can think of that would cause some folks to make this complicated is that they want to find an excuse for their failings, or for their indolence when it comes to overcoming sin.  To try to credit Jesus with a nature which is unrealistic and unattainable for us, is to give us the illusion of a "way out," so we can go our merry Laodicean way.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Jim on September 26, 2008, 07:34:52 AM
The only reason I can think of that would cause some folks to make this complicated is that they want to find an excuse for their failings, or for their indolence when it comes to overcoming sin.  To try to credit Jesus with a nature which is unrealistic and unattainable for us, is to give us the illusion of a "way out," so we can go our merry Laodicean way.

Amen!! They are looking at themselves and others their failings instead of look at Christ. Every time we look at ourselves or other, we like Peter fall into the water.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on September 26, 2008, 04:25:06 PM
I wanted to share this quote earlier, but couldn't find it at the time.  :oops:

"The highest evidence of nobility in a Christian is self-control. He who under abuse or cruelty fails to maintain a calm and trustful spirit robs God of His right to reveal in him His own perfection of character. Lowliness of heart is the strength that gives victory to the followers of Christ; it is the token of their connection with the courts above."   Desire of Ages, p. 301.

Compare with Jesus' own demeanor, patiently suffering torment in fallen flesh so as to condemn sin:

     ".... He spoke no burning words of retaliation. His calm answer came from a heart sinless, patient, and gentle, that would not be provoked.
     "Christ suffered keenly under abuse and insult. At the hands of the beings whom He had created, and for whom He was making an infinite sacrifice, He received every indignity. And He suffered in proportion to the perfection of His holiness and His hatred of sin. His trial by men who acted as fiends was to Him a perpetual sacrifice. To be surrounded by human beings under the control of Satan was revolting to Him. And He knew that in a moment, by the flashing forth of His divine power, He could lay His cruel tormentors in the dust. This made the trial the harder to bear."   Desire of Ages, p. 700.

When we see how Jesus accomplished our Salvation, we can say with Isaiah, "Woe is me, for I am a man of unclean lips." But He has promised that we can take hold of His strength.

Isaiah 27:5  "Or let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me; and he shall make peace with me."

Isaiah 41:10  "Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness."
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: teresa on October 13, 2008, 09:24:37 PM
Yesterday Betty and I were reading from a little devotional book entitled That I May Know Him by Elllen White.

I was interested in the words on page 268,"He was a mighty petitioiner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are.... ."

How wonderful it is to contemplate that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. 100% God and 100% man. I have thought that throughout the endless ages of eternity we will not be able to fully understand what he did for us.

That Jesus became fully human while remaining fully divine-God, for those who might misunderstand.  i think it is incomprehensible how much He gave up for us.  How low He went actually.

And that He spent hours in prayer with the Father, sometimes whole nights, for wisdom, guidance and probably patience to serve us, a race of ingrates who can find the silliest things to argue over, instead of seeking to love and understand each other.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: teresa on October 14, 2008, 04:30:50 PM

This is really quite simple. I do not have the quote at my finger tips but Mrs.White said that Jesus had dual natures. He took Adam's fallen nature but He also possessed the divine nature.   

maybe you meant something else, or in a different way than what i read. 

did our Savior have dual natures?

 Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No, the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the Sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood. This is a great mystery, a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood. But the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness. . . . {UL 260.2}

 In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem's manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fulness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race.--ST July 30, 1896. {TA 154.1}

 Whatever sacrifice a human being could undergo Christ endured, notwithstanding Satan put forth every effort to seduce Him with temptations; but the greater the temptation, the more perfect was the sacrifice. All that was possible for man to endure in the conflict with Satan, Christ endured in His human and divine nature combined. Obedient, sinless to the last, He died for man, his substitute and surety, enduring all that men ever endure from the deceiving tempter, that man may overcome by being a partaker of the divine nature. {1SM 342.2}
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on October 14, 2008, 08:43:02 PM
Quote
Cp said, "He took Adam's fallen nature but He also possessed the divine nature."


I take this to understand that Christ had the fallen nature from the tribe of Judah and the root of David from Mary His earthly mother referring to the external fleshly body.  The Divine 'hidden nature' was from the Holy Spirit within.

newbie
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: teresa on October 14, 2008, 10:03:20 PM
were they "dual", as in two separate natures?   or were they "blended", "combined", somehow?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on October 15, 2008, 08:03:17 AM
were they "dual", as in two separate natures?   or were they "blended", "combined", somehow?

Paul describes his own experience like this: 

Quote
Romans 7:14: For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15: For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16: If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17: Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19: For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20: Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21: I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22: For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

This is the condition that we will be in as Paul describes.  When baptized with the Holy Spirit it changes us on the inside but we will still be in the sinful flesh that won't be changed until Jesus comes.

Jesus was born of the fallen man in the flesh but His inner being was Divine.  And how the Divine was cloaked and the glory hidden, I do not understand.

At least, this is how I understand this complicated issue.

newbie
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: teresa on October 15, 2008, 09:05:13 AM
thank you for all that.

i was asking colporteur  how he meant the "dual"  natures....
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: teresa on October 18, 2008, 10:35:20 PM
Quote from: colporteur on September 18, 2008, 07:37:30 PM

This is really quite simple. I do not have the quote at my finger tips but Mrs.White said that Jesus had dual natures. He took Adam's fallen nature but He also possessed the divine nature.   

maybe you meant something else, or in a different way than what i read. 

did our Savior have dual natures?

 Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No, the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the Sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood. This is a great mystery, a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood. But the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness. . . . {UL 260.2}

 In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem's manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fulness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race.--ST July 30, 1896. {TA 154.1}

 Whatever sacrifice a human being could undergo Christ endured, notwithstanding Satan put forth every effort to seduce Him with temptations; but the greater the temptation, the more perfect was the sacrifice. All that was possible for man to endure in the conflict with Satan, Christ endured in His human and divine nature combined. Obedient, sinless to the last, He died for man, his substitute and surety, enduring all that men ever endure from the deceiving tempter, that man may overcome by being a partaker of the divine nature. {1SM 342.2}

i found what i believe to be the source of your statement:

 
Quote
How dimly they had comprehended the prophetic Scriptures! How dull they had been in taking in the great truths which testify of Christ! But what human mind could comprehend the mystery of his incarnation, the dual character of his nature, when they looked upon so humble a personage, one so void of human grandeur, who walked as a man among men!  {RH, April 23, 1895 par. 4}
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 19, 2008, 03:39:32 PM
May I ask a question...DW...are you thinking, Jesus became "sinful" because of Mrs. White's statement " He became sin" for us....?   I am simply trying to clarify..

God's Blessings'
Deborah   :-)
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 22, 2008, 08:04:36 AM
May I ask a question...DW...are you thinking, Jesus became "sinful" because of Mrs. White's statement " He became sin" for us....?   I am simply trying to clarify..

God's Blessings'
Deborah   :-)

Deborah,

Ellen White's statement is based upon two Scriptures, but I will supply three:

Galatians 4:4, 5  "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

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."

2 Cor 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."

These three texts are the foundation for understanding what it means to have sinful, fallen flesh or nature, and yet to have sinless, unfallen, uncorrupted character and spiritual nature.

Jesus was "made of a woman", who was a sinner, contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, and therefore became subject to death because those born of the flesh are under the condemnation of the law. Jesus became sin, who knew no sin, so that we might become righteousness, who knew no righteousness. That is why we become sons and daughters of God through adoption.

Jesus became flesh, which was weak and could not obey the law, so that by His pure, uncorrupted spiritual nature, which was strong, might be granted to us so that we can be strong to overcome as He overcame.

Notice that Paul wrote to the Romans that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh "for sin". The KJV has a marginal reading: "by a sacrifice for sin". We must always keep in mind that Jesus was not only the sin offering, but the High Priest. The sin offering, being a lamb without spot or blemish to represent the spiritual nature of Christ, became sin for the one confessing sin upon its head as it was representative of Christ's substitution in receiving our just reward. After the lamb was slain, the priest took the blood of the lamb into the tabernacle to sprinkle it before the veil, thus representing a transfer of sin from the repentant sinner to the lamb to the tabernacle, where on the Day of Atonement the sin was transferred to the scapegoat, representing Satan who originated sin and is therefore ultimately responsible for sin's existence.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Lazarus on October 22, 2008, 08:37:02 AM
Quote from: DW
Jesus became flesh, which was weak and could not obey the law, so that by His pure, uncorrupted spiritual nature, which was strong, might be granted to us so that we can be strong to overcome as He overcame.

Could He have just given us His spirit and not died on the cross?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on October 22, 2008, 08:44:03 AM
Could He have just given us His spirit and not died on the cross?


That would certainly have been nice but then Jesus would not have crushed the head of Satan and we would not be partakers of His raiment.

When Satan got dominion of this world it became a block for anything righteous to come forth from the disease of sin.  It would only happen through Jesus (Son of God Himself), that we could be saved.  We are a spectacle and an example to the other worlds for what would happen if Satan ever got control. 

I always looked at it this way, God felt responsible for what happened and had a plan for redemption to fix the problem of sin. 
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 22, 2008, 08:10:59 PM
Could He have just given us His spirit and not died on the cross?


Here is an interesting quote in response to your question:

"Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon." MS 50, 1900.

Also, these Scriptures:

Romans 3:25  "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Hebrews 9:22  "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on October 23, 2008, 08:44:23 AM
DW you have quoted one of my favorite passages that is interesting in terms of our redemption, the sanctuary, and Jesus....

Quote
Romans 3:25  "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Quote
Hebrews: 9:5  And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat;of which we cannot now speak particularly.

In the Greek both protitiation and mercy seat are the same word hilasterion 

Strongs describes as this:  used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement ;hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory 

Quote
Ex. 25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold

Many things in the old sanctuary we plated in gold but this is specific in that the cover of the ark was to be of PURE GOLD.

The ark of God had the Law deep inside.  The Glory of the Father is above the ark and when he looks down he sees the cover of the ark which is represented by Jesus.  Jesus is our only way that we can ever be justified to the Father because of the blood shed to pay the price that the Law requires.

And, this is why the two cherubim look down at the cover of the ark with reverence.... at the plan of redemption brought forth through Jesus.

God Bless us all as we contemplate the plan of redemption   :-)

newbie
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 24, 2008, 06:33:53 PM
DW...my question is still unanswered...do you believe Jesus was "sinful ?"

God's Blessings'
Deborah  :-)
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 25, 2008, 06:45:59 AM
May I ask a question...DW...are you thinking, Jesus became "sinful" because of Mrs. White's statement " He became sin" for us....?   I am simply trying to clarify..

God's Blessings'
Deborah   :-)

Deborah, I answered the question you asked. But now you ask a question which has a different meaning, and then state that I did not answer your question.

From my posts, you can see that I do not believe that Christ was born "corrupted" in His spiritual nature, but that His physical nature was "fallen" and the purpose for which God ordained this to be so.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 25, 2008, 08:09:40 AM
Deborah, I answered the question you asked. But now you ask a question which has a different meaning, and then state that I did not answer your question.

From my posts, you can see that I do not believe that Christ was born "corrupted" in His spiritual nature, but that His physical nature was "fallen" and the purpose for which God ordained this to be so.
Why not just say yes or no?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 25, 2008, 03:43:13 PM
DW...my questions were

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I ask a question...DW...are you thinking, Jesus became "sinful" because of Mrs. White's statement " He became sin" for us....?   I am simply trying to clarify..

God's Blessings'
Deborah   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW...my question is still unanswered...do you believe Jesus was "sinful ?"

God's Blessings'
Deborah  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know what the Scripture says...but I am still not clear as to "what you think" about Christ...was He "sinful" in you estimation?

I am just trying to clarify your though process..thanks.

God's Blessings'
Deborah   :-)
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 25, 2008, 04:22:45 PM
Hello Lazarus...I must say, your question has me confussed also...can you explain it to me ?

"Could He have just given us His spirit and not died on the cross?"

thanks,
God's Blessings'
Deborah  :-)
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 25, 2008, 04:24:42 PM
Why not just say yes or no?

Larry, I have given all the answer I need to give, that's why. Answering a yes no question will no more clarify what I believe than what I have already written.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: teresa on October 25, 2008, 04:42:17 PM
DW you have quoted one of my favorite passages that is interesting in terms of our redemption, the sanctuary, and Jesus....

In the Greek both protitiation and mercy seat are the same word hilasterion 

Strongs describes as this:  used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement ;hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory 

Many things in the old sanctuary we plated in gold but this is specific in that the cover of the ark was to be of PURE GOLD.

The ark of God had the Law deep inside.  The Glory of the Father is above the ark and when he looks down he sees the cover of the ark which is represented by Jesus.  Jesus is our only way that we can ever be justified to the Father because of the blood shed to pay the price that the Law requires.

And, this is why the two cherubim look down at the cover of the ark with reverence.... at the plan of redemption brought forth through Jesus.

God Bless us all as we contemplate the plan of redemption   :-)

newbie 

i like these thoughts, newbie! :)
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 25, 2008, 05:52:03 PM
Larry, I have given all the answer I need to give, that's why. Answering a yes no question will no more clarify what I believe than what I have already written.
DW I don't understand your atitude. I didn't see Deborah's questions or mine as argumentive or accusatory. But your answer sounds disdainful and arrogant. Whats up?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on October 25, 2008, 08:23:34 PM
i like these thoughts, newbie! :)

I'm glad that you liked that little mini study on the atonement and sanctuary.  :)  Always looking for the deeper meanings.. :-)
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 25, 2008, 09:02:04 PM
Quote
Romans 3:25  "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Quote
Hebrews: 9:5  And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat;of which we cannot now speak particularly.

In the Greek both protitiation and mercy seat are the same word hilasterion 

Strongs describes as this:  used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement ;hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory 

Newbie,

Someone sent us a letter that said the blood of the victim was never taken into the Holy of Holies. Do you know where this is found in the OT to save me time looking it up?  Thanks.

Modified: Never mind, I found it in Leviticus 16, but it doesn't answer the claim as I thought it did...I might have to open another thread and ask the specific question later. Thanks.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: colporteur on October 26, 2008, 12:06:51 PM
May I ask a question...DW...are you thinking, Jesus became "sinful" because of Mrs. White's statement " He became sin" for us....?   I am simply trying to clarify..

God's Blessings'
Deborah   :-)

Deborah;

As I have observed the dialog a question comes to mind. Could you clarify in your question what you mean by "sinful?"

I'm not trying to complicate the topic but but it seems to me that everything hinges on what exactly you mean by that.

We know and all agree that Jesus did not comit any sin. We also agree that He took sin upon Himself and bore all our sins. He took the nature of Adam after the fall. The serpent on Moses staff was a symbol of what Christ chose to become on the cross.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 26, 2008, 02:42:52 PM
Sure...the question might be asked this way...

To DW...."is it your concept, that Jesus was sinful as we are sinful....that "sin" is part of what "we are" at conception. We are unclean, bent, having the propensity to do evil?"

See, to say Jesus took on sin for us, can mean different things to different people...there are concepts  (biblical and non-biblical) to be defined.

The nature of Christ will always be an issue...to be fully man "and" fully God is hard to reconcile....people have always debated this issue.   I may not be able to perfectly define "the nature of Christ" to each person's satisfaction, but, we all do need to come to terms as to whether we believe if Jesus "had sin in His life or not, was He sinful as we are sinful...or did He take on "the weight" of human sin...carry it to the cross, then pay the penalty on our behalf."

I am confused as to what DW actually thinks about the nature of Christ....forgive me if I confussed anyone.

Again, my question is to DW..."do you believe Jesus was sinful as we humans?"

thanks,
God's Blessings'
Deborah  :-)





Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on October 27, 2008, 06:06:10 PM
In the Greek both protitiation and mercy seat are the same word hilasterion 

Strongs describes as this:  used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement ;hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory 

Newbie,

Someone sent us a letter that said the blood of the victim was never taken into the Holy of Holies. Do you know where this is found in the OT to save me time looking it up?  Thanks.

Modified: Never mind, I found it in Leviticus 16, but it doesn't answer the claim as I thought it did...I might have to open another thread and ask the specific question later. Thanks.

On the day of atonement the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat and it was the culmination of all the other blood throughout the year in a symbolic way...  at least, that is how I understand it.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 28, 2008, 06:40:45 AM
DW I don't understand your atitude. I didn't see Deborah's questions or mine as argumentive or accusatory. But your answer sounds disdainful and arrogant. Whats up?

Larry, I did not intend to write in such a manner as to make your yes/no questions as argumentive or accusatory. Nor did I intend convey attitudes of disdain or arrogance. That is the reader superimposing a judgmental conclusion upon a medium whereby no body language or tone of voice may be comprehended.

In my past experience as an ESL teacher, and being highly proficient in using the direct method, I know for a fact that yes/no questions do not clarify. They are a starting point, but they do not clarify because the only response is yes/no. Neither do either/or questions because of their limitations. The W/H questions are the ones that clarify.

Now, if you were in need of an attorney, which I am not (though I have taken law courses in college), one of the first things he/she might do is ask you a yes/no question, i.e. "Do you know what time it is?" The typical response by most people is to respond with the actual time of day, i.e. "It's 5:15." And the good attorney would prompty say, "I wish you would stop doing that!" Why? Because you are giving more information than you are asked.

In my posts, I have given extensive responses intended to clarify. I answered Deborah's question. Then she said I did not answer her question and asked me a completely different question, which required a yes/no answer, claiming the need for clarification. Yes/no questions do not clarify. So I refused to answer it. No disdain or arrogance intended, just presupposed.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 28, 2008, 07:04:39 AM
Sure...the question might be asked this way...

To DW...."is it your concept, that Jesus was sinful as we are sinful....that "sin" is part of what "we are" at conception. We are unclean, bent, having the propensity to do evil?"

See, to say Jesus took on sin for us, can mean different things to different people...there are concepts  (biblical and non-biblical) to be defined.

The nature of Christ will always be an issue...to be fully man "and" fully God is hard to reconcile....people have always debated this issue.   I may not be able to perfectly define "the nature of Christ" to each person's satisfaction, but, we all do need to come to terms as to whether we believe if Jesus "had sin in His life or not, was He sinful as we are sinful...or did He take on "the weight" of human sin...carry it to the cross, then pay the penalty on our behalf."

I am confused as to what DW actually thinks about the nature of Christ....forgive me if I confussed anyone.

Again, my question is to DW..."do you believe Jesus was sinful as we humans?"

thanks,
God's Blessings'
Deborah  :-)

Deborah, nowhere in my posts have I ever suggested that Jesus committed sin. Nowhere in my posts have I ever suggested that Jesus had a propensity to sin. What the Scriptures tell us is that Jesus was "made of a woman" who, contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition, was born "shapen in iniquity" which is another way of saying "sinful". I have referred you to quotes from the Scriptures and from SOP that tell us Jesus was born with a fallen human nature. Raven quoted where Ellen White says, "fallen but not corrupted" and makes a distinction between the spiritual nature (character) and physical nature (body). Nowhere in my posts did I suggest that Christ was tempted from within by lust, pride, or selfishness, which would indicated a propensity for sin and rebellion. However, I did state that with the weakened fallen (sinful) flesh, that Christ might be tempted from without to resort to selfishness by reason of His weariness, hunger, or thirst, just as Satan tempted Him in the wilderness and on the cross, as well as points before and between those two events. To clarify, what father or mother might selfishly sleep through the cries of a newborn who was hungry or dirty diapered? The temptation to sleep and meet selfish needs or wants is there.

In addition to the previous texts quoted, I refer you to Daniel 9:26 "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself...". The meaning here of cut off is the very same as that in Genesis 17:14, "...that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

As Colp mentioned in an earlier post, just because we are born into this sinful human race, we are condemned to die by the sin of one man, even those who did not sin after the similitude of Adam. Romans 5:14  "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." Now was Jesus born with fallen flesh? Yes. Why? Because it was necessary to condemn sin in the flesh through His perfect obedience to the law. What makes Him different from those "that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression"? Well, if it had not been for the promise of Christ to come as our substitute, we would have been left completely powerless to resist the power of Satan, and those would have transgressed had it not been for the power of Christ in their lives.

So, was Jesus, whose character was sinless, subject to death by reason of His fallen human form? Yes, in that without the ministration of angels He would have died from starvation in the wilderness after fasting for 40 days. He would have died in Gethsemane without the ministration of the angel after His third prayer.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 28, 2008, 10:37:03 AM
Larry, I did not intend to write in such a manner as to make your yes/no questions as argumentive or accusatory. Nor did I intend convey attitudes of disdain or arrogance. That is the reader superimposing a judgmental conclusion upon a medium whereby no body language or tone of voice may be comprehended.

In my past experience as an ESL teacher, and being highly proficient in using the direct method, I know for a fact that yes/no questions do not clarify. They are a starting point, but they do not clarify because the only response is yes/no. Neither do either/or questions because of their limitations. The W/H questions are the ones that clarify.

Now, if you were in need of an attorney, which I am not (though I have taken law courses in college), one of the first things he/she might do is ask you a yes/no question, i.e. "Do you know what time it is?" The typical response by most people is to respond with the actual time of day, i.e. "It's 5:15." And the good attorney would prompty say, "I wish you would stop doing that!" Why? Because you are giving more information than you are asked.

In my posts, I have given extensive responses intended to clarify. I answered Deborah's question. Then she said I did not answer her question and asked me a completely different question, which required a yes/no answer, claiming the need for clarification. Yes/no questions do not clarify. So I refused to answer it. No disdain or arrogance intended, just presupposed.

One of my great conversation frustrations is when I ask a yes/no question and receive an essay response. More often than not the person delivering the essay did not follow my reasoning as he supposed he did and therefore did not answer my question so I either drop the conversation or repeat myself. To me, it is just common courtesy that if a yes/no question is asked and understood then a yes/no answer can be given and the person asking the question given the chance to process the information and then ask further clarification if needed. That is what constitutes a good conversation.

Another conversation frustration is to ask a multiple choice question and get a yes/no answer.  :roll: Thankfully I don't see that one happening on the forum.

I wandered onto this thread by mistake this morning since I had decided a few days ago I did not want to read through a yes/no debate yet again. But since having skimmed the reply I thought you could read my 2 cents about it. Thank you & good-bye.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 28, 2008, 10:51:57 AM
One of my great conversation frustrations is when I ask a yes/no question and receive an essay response. More often than not the person delivering the essay did not follow my reasoning as he supposed he did and therefore did not answer my question so I either drop the conversation or repeat myself. To me, it is just common courtesy that if a yes/no question is asked and understood then a yes/no answer can be given and the person asking the question given the chance to process the information and then ask further clarification if needed. That is what constitutes a good conversation.

Another conversation frustration is to ask a multiple choice question and get a yes/no answer.  :roll: Thankfully I don't see that one happening on the forum.

I wandered onto this thread by mistake this morning since I had decided a few days ago I did not want to read through a yes/no debate yet again. But since having skimmed the reply I thought you could read my 2 cents about it. Thank you & good-bye.

Wow! Thanks for your input. However, you overlook one thing: will my yes or no be accurate if the question is not phrased in such a manner as to permit accurate understanding after it is answered?

Discussion requires patience. Understanding requires patience.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 28, 2008, 10:56:49 AM
Larry, I did not intend to write in such a manner as to make your yes/no questions as argumentive or accusatory. Nor did I intend convey attitudes of disdain or arrogance. That is the reader superimposing a judgmental conclusion upon a medium whereby no body language or tone of voice may be comprehended.

In my past experience as an ESL teacher, and being highly proficient in using the direct method, I know for a fact that yes/no questions do not clarify. They are a starting point, but they do not clarify because the only response is yes/no. Neither do either/or questions because of their limitations. The W/H questions are the ones that clarify.

Now, if you were in need of an attorney, which I am not (though I have taken law courses in college), one of the first things he/she might do is ask you a yes/no question, i.e. "Do you know what time it is?" The typical response by most people is to respond with the actual time of day, i.e. "It's 5:15." And the good attorney would prompty say, "I wish you would stop doing that!" Why? Because you are giving more information than you are asked.

In my posts, I have given extensive responses intended to clarify. I answered Deborah's question. Then she said I did not answer her question and asked me a completely different question, which required a yes/no answer, claiming the need for clarification. Yes/no questions do not clarify. So I refused to answer it. No disdain or arrogance intended, just presupposed.
I believe that it is a given among professional communicators that  in order to have a dialog, if your message is not being clearly received, then you need to adjust your message. You were given feedback that your answer appeared to be rude. If you actually want to communicate, your intention means nothing if what you intend to convey is not understood. Maybe you need to look at your style of communication. This is, after all, a discussion forum, not a journal for publishing one's essays.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deep Waters on October 28, 2008, 11:03:08 AM
I believe that it is a given among professional communicators that  in order to have a dialog, if your message is not being clearly received, then you need to adjust your message. You were given feedback that your answer appeared to be rude. If you actually want to communicate, your intention means nothing if what you intend to convey is not understood. Maybe you need to look at your style of communication. This is, after all, a discussion forum, not a journal for publishing one's essays.

Perception may be reality, but is it truth? As long as my responses are judged by you and others to be rude, when they are not transmitted with that intent, then it is you who are judging motive.

I recall one man asking another about a dog in the room. "Does your dog bite?" "No," came the response. Upon being bitten while trying to pet the dog, the first man exclaimed, "You said your dog doesn't bite!" The other said, "That is not my dog."
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 28, 2008, 11:32:19 AM
Perception may be reality, but is it truth? As long as my responses are judged by you and others to be rude, when they are not transmitted with that intent, then it is you who are judging motive.

I recall one man asking another about a dog in the room. "Does your dog bite?" "No," came the response. Upon being bitten while trying to pet the dog, the first man exclaimed, "You said your dog doesn't bite!" The other said, "That is not my dog."
DW, please read your posts. We want to keep an atmosphere of Christian curtesy. We want to avoid acrimonious exchanges, and we want to be careful of the attitude that we convey. We may be correct in our ideas and our doctrines, but if we come accross with an argumentive and defensive attitude, others will not hear us.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 31, 2008, 07:18:50 PM
I apologize for contributing to the problem also.

God's Blessings'
Deborah  :- :-(
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 01, 2008, 07:42:01 AM
I apologize for contributing to the problem also.

God's Blessings'
Deborah  :- :-(
I'm not sure you owe an apology, but apology accepted.  :-)

Larry.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: BobRyan on November 20, 2008, 10:45:41 AM
Sure...the question might be asked this way...

To DW...."is it your concept, that Jesus was sinful as we are sinful....that "sin" is part of what "we are" at conception. We are unclean, bent, having the propensity to do evil?"

See, to say Jesus took on sin for us, can mean different things to different people...there are concepts  (biblical and non-biblical) to be defined.

The nature of Christ will always be an issue...to be fully man "and" fully God is hard to reconcile....people have always debated this issue.   I may not be able to perfectly define "the nature of Christ" to each person's satisfaction, but, we all do need to come to terms as to whether we believe if Jesus "had sin in His life or not, was He sinful as we are sinful...or did He take on "the weight" of human sin...carry it to the cross, then pay the penalty on our behalf."

I am confused as to what DW actually thinks about the nature of Christ....forgive me if I confussed anyone.

Again, my question is to DW..."do you believe Jesus was sinful as we humans?"

thanks,
God's Blessings'
Deborah  :-)


Well said --

here are some statements (not from the Bible unfortunately -- but I hope you will find them helpful).

Sinless nature of Christ:

be exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of
Christ. Do not set him before the people as a man with propensities of sin.
He is the second Adam. The first was created a pure, sinless being,
without the taint of sin upon him; He was in the image of God. He could
fall and He did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity
was born with propensities of disobedience (sin)). But Jesus Christ was
the only begotten Son of God
....
Not for one moment was there in him an
evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness as Adam
was assailed with temptations in Eden. 5BC 1128 (7a BC 447).

Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable
to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating the
humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest
your words be taken to mean more than they imply
...
Never in any way, leave
the slightest impression upon human minds that any taint or the inclination
to corruption (sin) rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption
...
The incarnation of Christ has ever been and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is
revealed is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the
ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves,
for it cannot be. 5bc 1128-1129 (7a BC 448).

Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God
and beloved by God. He began where the first Adam began. Willingly he
passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.
Youth's instructor June 2 1898 (7a BC 446)

he was to take his position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. Signs of the times may 29 1901.

Christ "vanguished satan in the same nature over which in Eden satan obtained
the victory" Youth's Instructor April 25, 1901.

In taking upon himself man's nature in it's fallen condition Christ did not in the
least participate in its sin.... We should have no misgivivings in regard to the
perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ 5BC 1131 (7a BC 447)

the human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering the was more keenly
felt by him; for his spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin.
Signs of the times Dec 9 1897.

7BC 912 "he was to take his position at the head of humanity by taking the
nature (of man) but not the sinfulness of man".

Christ was sinless "not possessing the passions of our human, fallen
nature" 2T509

Christ did not become "a sinner by his incarnation" SD 25

Christ is our "brother in our infirmities but not in possessing like passions" 2T202

Christ's "character revealed a perfect hatred for sin" 5bc 1142.
Christ "became like one of us except in sin" sd 23
"as the sinless one his nature recoiled from sin" 2T202

in Christ "no thought or feeling responded to temptation" DA 266

"no polution of sin received by Christ as result of his incarnation" DA266.

in Christ,

Bob
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on November 20, 2008, 05:57:19 PM
Well said --

here are some statements (not from the Bible unfortunately -- but I hope you will find them helpful).

Sinless nature of Christ:

be exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of
Christ. Do not set him before the people as a man with propensities of sin.
He is the second Adam. The first was created a pure, sinless being,
without the taint of sin upon him; He was in the image of God. He could
fall and He did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity
was born with propensities of disobedience (sin)). But Jesus Christ was
the only begotten Son of God
....
Not for one moment was there in him an
evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness as Adam
was assailed with temptations in Eden. 5BC 1128 (7a BC 447).

Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable
to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating the
humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest
your words be taken to mean more than they imply
...
Never in any way, leave
the slightest impression upon human minds that any taint or the inclination
to corruption (sin) rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption
...
The incarnation of Christ has ever been and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is
revealed is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the
ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves,
for it cannot be. 5bc 1128-1129 (7a BC 448).

Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God
and beloved by God. He began where the first Adam began. Willingly he
passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.
Youth's instructor June 2 1898 (7a BC 446)

he was to take his position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. Signs of the times may 29 1901.

Christ "vanguished satan in the same nature over which in Eden satan obtained
the victory" Youth's Instructor April 25, 1901.

In taking upon himself man's nature in it's fallen condition Christ did not in the
least participate in its sin.... We should have no misgivivings in regard to the
perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ 5BC 1131 (7a BC 447)

the human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering the was more keenly
felt by him; for his spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin.
Signs of the times Dec 9 1897.

7BC 912 "he was to take his position at the head of humanity by taking the
nature (of man) but not the sinfulness of man".

Christ was sinless "not possessing the passions of our human, fallen
nature" 2T509

Christ did not become "a sinner by his incarnation" SD 25

Christ is our "brother in our infirmities but not in possessing like passions" 2T202

Christ's "character revealed a perfect hatred for sin" 5bc 1142.
Christ "became like one of us except in sin" sd 23
"as the sinless one his nature recoiled from sin" 2T202

in Christ "no thought or feeling responded to temptation" DA 266

"no polution of sin received by Christ as result of his incarnation" DA266.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, those are excellent quotes, and I will highlight these:

The incarnation of Christ has ever been and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is
revealed is for us and for our children, but let every human being be WARNED from the
ground of making Christ altogether HUMAN, such an one as ourselves,
for IT CANNOT BE. 5bc 1128-1129 (7a BC 448).

Christ is called the SECOND Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God
and beloved by God. He BEGAN WHERE THE FIRST ADAM BEGAN. Willingly he
passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.
Youth's instructor June 2 1898 (7a BC 446)
-------------------------------------------------------

There is an excellent Biblical quotation in Romans 5:12-19 which illustrates why the above quotes are important.


Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on November 20, 2008, 06:00:43 PM
Just to finish the thought:

There is an excellent Biblical quotation I used earlier on this thread in Romans 5:12-19 which illustrates why the above quotes are important:

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Stan
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Deborah Risinger on November 21, 2008, 05:25:06 PM
Indeed,  "God is lovely"

Amen, Amen, Amen

God's Blessings'
Deborah
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Ed Sutton on December 16, 2008, 11:28:51 PM
It is understood that Christ is eternally pure and took humanity into Himself. 

If I may attempt "clear and set" for my benefit - It seems there is agreement that Jesus the man - came as a converted person of Romans 8, and in Gethsemane and forward unto the death on Calvary became vicariously 100% carnal in our place , rising from the tomb 100% still personally pure and holy and still sanctified now glorified humanity to stand in Heaven and minister for us.

Did I express it appropriately to rightly adorn the  Gospel ?
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 24, 2009, 04:58:08 PM
The ESV study Bible has a good summary of the nature of Christ with scriptural references at this link:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/ThePersonofChrist.pdf

What do you think of some of the following excerpts?


Humans have obviously been sinful ever since the
fall. Therefore, it is easy to assume that being sinful is
an essential, necessary part of being a
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 24, 2009, 10:33:56 PM
The ESV study Bible has a good summary of the nature of Christ with scriptural references at this link:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/ThePersonofChrist.pdf

What do you think of some of the following excerpts?

Jesus
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 25, 2009, 03:11:05 AM
Stan, there is a theology that some preach that states that Jesus "represented obedience for us" meaning that we are now "free in Christ" and since He obeyed for us, God does not require obedience from us. We no longer have to worry about actually keeping God's Commandments. In fact, trying to keep the Commandments would be a denial of the gospel.
Is that what is being suggested in the above paragraph?

Larry,

Thanks for the reply.

I am quite familiar with the editors of the ESV study Bible and I can categorically state that they don't hold to the "cheap grace" theory that you are rightly concerned about.

There is more that I would like to say about this. Will try to add more thoughts on this later.

I thought they were fair about the evidence regarding the human nature of Christ.

It is clear that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man and speculating too far beyond this and getting into some technical arguments that go beyond the text may not be wise and tend to cause unnecessary contention.

Romans 5 is very clear that Christ came as the second Adam and lived a perfect life and this perfect life of Christ is imputed to our account by faith.

 6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

 10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

 11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
----------------------
Stan


Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: guibox on September 25, 2009, 05:31:30 AM
Good quotes Stan. It shows how Jesus was human, and why He needed to be human without needing to have the same nature as us to relate to and represent us. This quote particularly brings this out.

Quote
His humanity gives a glimpse of what our humanity
would be, were it not tainted with sin.
He shows
that  the problem with humanity is not that we are humans,
but rather that we are fallen.
Jesus
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Honesty on December 01, 2010, 12:36:02 PM
"...The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study. Christ was a real man; he gave proof of his humility in becoming a man. Yet he was God in the flesh. When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moses at the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." We should come to this study with the humility of a learner, with a contrite heart. And the study of the incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, which will repay the searcher who digs deep for hidden truth." YI 10-13-1898

"...He [Christ]...clothed His divinity with humanity and came to earth to exemplify what humanity must do and be in order to overcome the enemy and to sit with Father upon His throne. Coming, as He did, as a man to meet and be subjected to all the tendencies to which man is heir, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan. (Letter K-303, 1903)
This is from a letter to Dr. John Harvey Kellog among her yet unpublished manuscripts. It's also found in the book "The Theology of Questions on Doctrine" by Colin and Russell Standish.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Alpendave on August 10, 2011, 12:26:12 PM
One thing that helps shed some light on how Christ could be tempted as we are while having a sinless nature is the fact that He lived on earth while bearing the sins of the world. It wasn't at the cross where man's sins were laid on Him. In the last paragraph on page 116 of The Desire of Ages Ellen White makes it clear that the sins of the world were already upon Him when He entered the wilderness to be tempted. Many people overlook that statement while employing that in the next paragraph about Him taking human nature after 4000 years of sin. If people want to insist that Jesus inherited a moral degeneracy and lived a sinless life with it, then why not also insist on the physical degeneracy? If Jesus' physical nature was as weakened as any other child of Adam, then why didn't He have cerebral palsy or some other debilitating malady that has come to us as a result of the inheritance of sin?

To me, it makes much more sense that Jesus had to endure the cruel test of bearing our sins in His hereditary sinless nature. It was in bearing our sins that temptation so difficult for Him to resist. While we can falter and slide back into the comfort of indifference to our sinful condition and that of the world in general, He had to endure the torture of not only constantly witnessing that in others which grieved Him so terribly, but also that which was laid upon Him as our substitute -- all the while having the divine prerogative of re-ascending to Heaven or the human one of falling and becoming indifferent to it
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on August 10, 2011, 01:38:18 PM
It is a deep subject!  Let me try and explain at least, how I understand this most difficult subject.  I'd like to say that I agree with you that the wilderness test was almost to the point of death and very similar to the cross experience. 

This is a very important topic as it has to do with our own victory over sin and our transformation for the end time battle.

Quote
    Rom.8:3,4 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 [(margin) by a sacrifice] for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Christ condemned sin in the flesh.

RH, November 8,1887 par.8 He met the arch-apostate face to face, and single-handed withstood the foe of His throne. Not even by a thought could Christ be brought to yield to the power of temptation. A thought, inspired by Satan, in the mind.

3SM 136.2 The Son of God placed Himself in the sinner
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Alpendave on August 10, 2011, 02:07:38 PM
Thanks for those profound quotes Newbie. However, as I also posted in a related thread only minutes ago, I think the dilemma in this issue is more logically resolved with the understanding that it was as He bore our sins in His sinless (by nature) humanity that he struggled with temptations. It was thus that He condemned sin in the flesh. Paul's writing is very careful in Romans 8:3-4. If he wanted to stress a post-fall perspective, he would have left out the word "likeness". But it's presence indicates that it's fundamental nature is not identical in every aspect to ours. It was still sinless/unfallen or it would not be able to atone for our sins.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: newbie on August 10, 2011, 02:58:31 PM
Thanks for those profound quotes Newbie. However, as I also posted in a related thread only minutes ago, I think the dilemma in this issue is more logically resolved with the understanding that it was as He bore our sins in His sinless (by nature) humanity that he struggled with temptations. It was thus that He condemned sin in the flesh. Paul's writing is very careful in Romans 8:3-4. If he wanted to stress a post-fall perspective, he would have left out the word "likeness". But it's presence indicates that it's fundamental nature is not identical in every aspect to ours. It was still sinless/unfallen or it would not be able to atone for our sins.

Heb 2:16  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

notice that it does not say the seed of Adam...

Rom 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:

notice the scriptures say He came of sinful flesh....  likeness here means that he was without sin...He was victorious where Adam sinned
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Alpendave on August 10, 2011, 07:39:59 PM
Heb 2:16  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

notice that it does not say the seed of Adam...

Rom 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:

notice the scriptures say He came of sinful flesh....  likeness here means that he was without sin...He was victorious where Adam sinned

The SDA commentary states that the Greek of that text in Hebrews 2:16 is more accurately rendered that "He does not give aid to angels..." though both renderings are technically acceptable. The KJV is the only version I know of that renders it that way. Not even the NKJV renders it the same as the KJV, though its marginal reading is concurs with it. It should also be noted that the usage of the word "seed" is used in the scripture to express the idea of Jesus being the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies and not to discuss His human nature.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Alpendave on August 21, 2011, 03:10:55 AM
Maybe it was providential that my former employer walked into my office a couple of days ago and handed me the most definitive statement I have ever seen on this subject.  It is from Manuscript Release, Vol. 16,  No. 12111--3, 4, p. 182, 183.

   The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.  

"Fallen but not corrupted" is the key phrase, and, one would assume, should end debate on this subject, but, obviously that is not the case.  The underlining was in the original, from which I got this quote.

In that exact reference that your former employer  uses Sister White also says:

Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. His finite nature was pure and

120

spotless, but the divine nature ... was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties.

"But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man.
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: Ed Sutton on July 01, 2014, 06:47:38 AM
Q. What did Christ have - whereby He overcame while us not having it - fail ?
A. Unbroken communion with Heaven, as a man.    Hebrews 5:7  Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Quote
In a life wholly devoted to the good of others, the Saviour found it necessary to withdraw from the thoroughfares of travel and from the throng that followed Him day after day. He must turn aside from a life of ceaseless activity and contact with human needs, to seek retirement and unbroken communion with His Father. As one with us, a sharer in our needs and weaknesses, He was wholly dependent upon God, and in the secret place of prayer He sought divine strength, that He might go forth braced for duty and trial. In a world of sin Jesus endured struggles and torture of soul. In communion with God He could unburden the sorrows that were crushing Him. Here He found comfort and joy.  {DA 362.4} 
     In Christ the cry of humanity reached the Father of infinite pity. As a man He supplicated the throne of God till His humanity was charged with a heavenly current that should connect humanity with divinity. Through continual communion He received life from God, that He might impart life to the world. His experience is to be ours.  {DA 363.1} 


Quote
  Jan. 3, 1890. A Perfect Saviour. Christ unites in His person the fullness and perfection of the Godhead and the fullness and perfection of sinless humanity. He met all the temptations by which Adam was assailed, and overcame these temptations, because in His humanity He relied upon divine power. This subject demands far more contemplation than it receives. Christians strike too low. They are content with a superficial spiritual experience, and therefore they have only the glimmerings of light, when they might have far greater knowledge, when they might discern more clearly the wonderful perfection of Christ's humanity, which rises far above all human greatness, all human power. Christ's life is a revelation of what fallen human beings may become through union and fellowship with the divine nature. The more deeply we study the life and character of our Redeemer, the more clearly shall we see the Father as He is, full of goodness and mercy, love and truth.  {18MR 331.4} 
 
Title: Re: Interesting
Post by: sdazeal on July 01, 2014, 06:09:04 PM
Yes, EGW understood that the Greek and dictionary definition of the word "godhead" is "divine nature". Jesus had to partake of the Father's divine nature in His humanity, just as we may and are expected to. The Same Spirit of God that gave Jesus His power to overcome is available to all.