Because temptations do not come from being worse than someone else. You seem to have the idea that only bad people are tempted. The better a person is, the less he is tempted. This is what I'm hearing. And if one is perfectly good, like Jesus, then such a one isn't tempted at all. How is this sort of "Gospel" of any help to an actual bad person?



Bad people need a Savior who humiliated Himself to the lowest depths, because that's where bad people find themselves. They can't lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. They need someone who can reach them, and lift them up.



Jesus didn't have the same desires of the converted man; He had the same flesh, and passed through the same temptations.



Christ had the same flesh. To be tempted is not sin. If the mind dwells on the sinful thought, that is sin.

Christ humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of man to reach man where He is, in order that He might have compassion on those needing help. He provides the help by extending to man the same comfort He received when He was tempted.



If a temptation is not tempting, then it's not difficult to resist. If temptations were not tempting to Christ, then the were easy for Him to resist. Why wouldn't they be? What else is there to a temptation that makes it difficult if it's not that it's tempting.

In the above quote we are told that men cannot comprehend the strength of the temptations Christ had to endure. This means His temptations were more tempting than ours, not less. So much more, in fact, that we cannot comprehend it.

She also supported them on the particular subject of Christ's taking our fallen nature. She also endorsed W. W. Prescott on this specific point. She endorsed Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh," which was specifically about the subject of Christ's having our sinful flesh. I quoted a bit of the sermon earlier, and have quoted her endorsement of the sermon.



On what basis are you asserting this? Many people know Ellen White as post-lapsarian who have no knowledge whatsoever of Jones and Waggoner's writings. I'm such a one. I knew this 15 years before I knew of Jones and Waggoner. Just from reading "The Desire of Ages" this was clear to me.



Regarding whether Jesus was born sometime back in eternity, this was something mentioned maybe less than 5 times in all of Waggoner's writings, and I don't recall Jones mentioning it at all. On the other hand, they both mentioned Christ's taking our fallen nature hundreds of times, and both of them considered it foundational to their understanding of righteousness by faith.

Where did she say this?



Or this?



Or this?



Here's something she actually did write:



Far from saying Jones and Waggoner should be ignored because they fell away, she said it was a "fatal delusion" to do so.



We should be receiving with open arms the light that God sent, not looking for reasons to set it aside.

I posted all these quotes, quite some time ago, Tom...and I'll post them again. This is Ellen White talking....not me...



Clearly, from this quote alone, by 1901, there was serious trouble with Jones.







So, the question should not be, “Did Jones and Waggoner lose their way?” Rather, it should be “When did they lose their way?” And that is pretty hard to know exactly, because as we all know, no one goes from light to darkness over night….it is a gradual process.

But, the fact that we know they lost their way, and that we don’t know when they began to lose their way, should make us think twice when we read what they wrote, after 1888, because otherwise, how do we know that we are not picking up the very sentiments that caused them to go astray? For that reason, I think it is much safer to read the Spirit of Prophecy. We NEVER have to wonder, “Is what I just read inspired?” “Is Ellen White really on track here?” We KNOW she was inspired, and we also KNOW that the very message that Jones and Waggoner were teaching in 1888, she said, “I have been presenting it (the 1888 Message) to you for the last 45 years--the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds.” From this, I don’t believe that they had anything she didn’t already have, and I know if I get it from her, I don’t have to worry about going astray.

I believe that Jones was far from truth in this statement, which is from the 1895 General Conference Bulletin ~

Here is another place where I believe Jones is far from truth.

This is Ellen White’s description of when Satan took Jesus up on the mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world:



Ellen White says: “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.”

Jones says: “And there at that moment there was stirred up all the ambition that ever appeared in Napoleon or Cæsar, or Alexander, or all of them put together.”

These statements are NOT saying the same thing. Jones is saying that this temptation stirred up “AMBITION” that was IN JESUS, even ALL the AMBITION that “ever appeared in Napoleon or Caesar, or Alexander, or ALL OF THEM PUT TOGETHER.” Ellen White doesn’t even hint of any ambition IN Jesus. She does say that , “As Satan saw them, they possessed great external grandeur.” HE (SATAN) is the one that had the AMBITION, NOT JESUS. And because he had ambition, he tried to find that IN Jesus, but, as ALWAYS, Ellen White and the Bible make it clear, “But Christ saw them in a different aspect…”

Ellen White says that “There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan’s sophistry.” Jones said, “And there at that moment there was stirred up all the ambition that ever appeared in Napoleon or Cæsar, or Alexander, or all of them put together.” Can’t you admit that Jones and Ellen White are NOT teaching the same thing? When Ellen White says, “There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan’s sophistry,” NOTHING MEANS NOTHING. Nowhere in Him, not in His heart or His mind or His flesh – NOTHING, NOWHERE responded.

Please don’t try to say that “Jesus didn’t have ambition in His heart, it was in His flesh.” Ambition doesn’t reside in the flesh – it resides in the heart.

1. “With the gentle touch of grace the Saviour banishes from the soul unrest and unholy AMBITION…” PK-60.
2. “Pride, AMBITION, deceit, hatred, selfishness, must be cleansed from the heart. With many these evil traits are partially subdued, but not thoroughly uprooted from the heart.” 5T-175.
3. “It was the PRIDE and AMBITION cherished in the heart of Satan that banished him from heaven. These evils are deeply rooted in our fallen nature, and if not removed they will over shadow every good and noble quality and bring forth envy and strife as their baleful fruits.” 5T-242.

Ellen White says in DA-123, “’The Prince of this world cometh,’ said Jesus, ‘and hath nothing in Me.’ John 14:30. There was in Him NOTHING THAT RESPONDED to Satan’s sophistry.” Jones says, “there at that moment there was STIRRED UP all the ambition that ever appeared in…” According to Jones there was something in Him that responded, but He kept it from coming out. Now consider this quote very carefully. “The law of God takes note of the jealousy, envy, hatred, malignity, revenge, lust and AMBITION that surge through the soul, but have not found expression in outward action, because the opportunity, not the will, has been wanting. And these SINFUL EMOTIONS will be brought into the account in the day when ‘God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.’ (Eccl. 12:14)” 1 SM-217. This is exactly where Jones is putting Christ. Jesus did not SUBDUE this “sinful emotion”. There was none in Him. (John 14:30). On the contrary, HE WAS infinite humility: “What He taught, He lived. ‘I have given you an example,’ He said to His disciples; ‘that ye should do as I have done.’ ‘I have kept My Father’s commandments.’ John 13:15; 15:10. Thus in His life, Christ’s words had perfect illustration and support. AND MORE THAN THIS; what He taught, HE WAS. His Jones is actually teaching that Jesus had the attributes of Satan, when he says He had “ambition”. He did this before in Heaven, too: “Therefore he (Satan) misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. …Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world. {DA 21.3} History repeats itself.

All of you who believe that Jesus had “selfishness”, “pride” , “ambition” "lust" or any other sinful attribute in Him are doing the very thing Satan did in Heaven, “misrepresenting God (in the form of Jesus)” and attributing to God, Satan’s “own evil characteristics”.

I am not saying you are doing this intentionally as Satan did it, but nonetheless, the end result is the same.

That's only far from truth if that is not just how any Christian is.

You seem, in this post and your next post, to disallow Christ having a true human aspect to his experience: sinful inclination contributing to the battle of facing temptation. Unless Jesus was tempted from within, so to speak - by his assumed, sinful flesh, he is no example, which is precisely what Siste White said to those who asked her what the issue was with discussing Christ's humanity between sinful and sinless...

As for ambition or no ambition..., EGW and Jones aren't contradictory, because the delegates, first of all, at the GC Session, said Amen to Jones' presentations, and...

Sister White was speaking to Jesus' spiritual reaction by faith to Satan's virtually overpowering temptation - which none of us shall be required ever to face, as we don't have to qualify as "Saviour" !! - while Jones, perfectly correctly, was describing Jesus' natural, human reaction to the temptation. Thus we have an Example in our great High Priest, for he was taken from among his brethern - as Levitical laws prescribe, and Hebrews reiterates, and he suffered temptations precisely as we do, but he learned obedience to God through those very sufferings (Heb 4).

The "things he suffered" were his humanity's deprivation of sinful satisfaction, since he chose righteousness - by faith: therefore, and only thereby, is his total experience on earth, not forgetting his death and resurrection, the very content of our very Gospel experience - our inner experience: justification - pardon AND renewal of the mind; sanctification - exercise of that "mind of Christ" (ie. the renewed mind) under the Spirit's leading (ie. Christ's presence with us till and beyond probation closing - it closing due to the fact that he shall have finished building our characters, with our agreement...) in building our Christlike characters, the completion of which renders us no longer in need of intercession for he shall have made (yes, the sanctuary "shall" be cleansed!) us perfectly abhorrent of sinning and ready for translation; his resurrection is the glorification of sinful humanity which eradicated its sinfulness - of course, but just enunciating the procedure - and whence we receive immortality in our flesh.

The Gospel of salvation in Jesus thus hinges on his sinfully inclined humanity, for both our justification and our glorification, and everything in between. We like our Elder Brother, exist naturally - fleshly, and spiritually - dead to the sin of the flesh should we be alive to God by his indwelling Spirit: partakers of the divine nature.

Get it?

Got it?

Done. PTL!

how do you come to these conclusions? what authority is it based on?

i see Christ as fully able to cleanse me of all sin without having to be exactly like me, so i cant see that believing He was somehow "sinful" as any prerequisite to salvation, while i do see others making it very dependent on Christ having sinful tendencies, inclinations, which are, i believe, synonyms for propensities, to be able to be saved.

in other words, "Christ if you were not tempted with the same things i am tempted with then You arent qualified to save me".

i have no such limitations on our Savior. i understand the temptations He suffered in a much different, elevating light, not a demoralizing view.


we do not have legitimate hunger. we hunger for unwholesome foods and drugs. that was not the temptation Jesus fought. Jesus had legitimate hunger and denied that hunger for wholesome food, in the 40 days temptation.

we can rise no higher than our view of Jesus.

Yes, Christ was literally starving to death when the devil tempted Him to turn stones into bread to feed His starving human body, but to have done so would have been wrong, would have been sinful.

Being as hungry as He was, He was probably tempted to do it, but He didn't give in to that temptation, but instead responded to the temptation with an "It is written."

thank you, i did leave that out. but it was still a legitimate hunger as opposed to ours, would you agree? or do you see it differently?