Tom and Elle,

I think both of you may already know where I stand on the 144,000 and victory. Creation's Prophecy teaches clearly that the end-time people will be made in God's image.

Elle, in my explanation of Day 6 of creation week, I think I have quoted COL 69. Yes, it's Christ's Object Lessons, page 69.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Elle, here's something from A. T. Jones that you might enjoy:

It can never be repeated too often, that under the reign of grace it is just as easy to do right, as under the reign of sin it is easy to do wrong. This must be so; for if there is not more power in grace than there is in sin, then there can be no salvation from sin. But there is salvation from sin; this no one who believes Christianity can deny.

Yet salvation from sin certainly depends upon there being more power in grace than there is in sin. Then, there being more power in grace than there is in sin, it cannot possibly be otherwise than that wherever the power of grace can have control, it will be just as easy to do right as without this it is easy to do wrong.

No man ever yet naturally found it difficult to do wrong. His great difficulty has always been to do right. But this is because man naturally is enslaved to a power - the power of sin - that is absolute in its reign. And so long as that power has sway, it is not only difficult but impossible to do the good that he knows and that he would. But let a mightier power than that have sway, then is it not plain enough that it will be just as easy to serve the will of the mightier power, when it reigns, as it was to serve the will of the other power when it reigned?

But grace is not simply more powerful than is sin. If this were indeed all, even then there would be fulness of hope and good cheer to every sinner in the world. But this, good as it would be, is not all; it is not nearly all. There is much more power in grace than there is in sin. For "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." And just as much more power in grace than there is in sin, just so much more hope and good cheer there are for every sinner in the world.

How much more power, then, is there in grace than there is in sin? Let me think a moment. Let me ask myself a question or two. Whence comes grace? - From God, to be sure. "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Whence comes sin? - From the devil, of course. Sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. Well, then, how much more power is there in grace than there is in sin? It is as plain as A B C that there is just as much more power in grace than there is in sin, as there is more power in God than there is in the devil. It is therefore also perfectly plain that the reign of grace is the reign of God; and that the reign of sin is the reign of Satan. And is it not therefore perfectly plain also, that it is just as easy to serve God by the power of God as it is to serve Satan with the power of Satan?

Where the difficulty comes in, in all this, is that so many people try to serve God with the power of Satan. But that can never be done. "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt." Men cannot gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles. The tree must be made good, root and branch. It must be made new. "Ye must be born again." "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Let no one ever attempt to serve God with anything but the present, living power of God, that makes him a new creature; with nothing but the much more abundant grace that condemns sin in the flesh, and reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Then the service of God will indeed be in "newness of life;" then it will be found that his yoke is indeed "easy" and his burden "light;" then his service will be found indeed to be with "joy unspeakable and full of glory."

Did Jesus ever find it difficult to do right? Every one will instantly say, No. But why? he was just as human as we are. He took flesh and blood the same as ours. "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." And the kind of flesh that he was made in this world, was precisely such as was in this world. "In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." "In all things"! It does not say, In all things but one. There is no exception. He was made in all things like as we are. He was of himself as weak as we are; for he said, "I can of mine own self do nothing."

Why, then, being in all things like as we are, did he find it always easy to do right? - Because he never trusted to himself, but his trust was always in God alone. All his dependence was upon the grace of God. He always sought to serve God, only with the power of God. And therefore the Father dwelt in him, and did the works of righteousness. Therefore it was always easy for him to do right. But as he is, so are we in this world. He has left us an example, that we should follow his steps. "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure," as well as in him. All power in heaven and in earth is given unto him; and he desires that you may be strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power. "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and he strengthens you with might by his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your heart by faith, that you may be "filled with all the fulness of God."

True, Christ partook of the divine nature, and so do you if you are a child of promise, and not of the flesh; for by the promises ye are partakers of the divine nature. There was nothing given to him in this world, and he had nothing in this world, that is not freely given to you, or that you may not have.

All this is in order that you may walk in newness of life; that henceforth you may not serve sin; that you may be the servant of righteousness only; that you may be freed from sin; that sin may not have dominion over you; that you may glorify God on the earth; and that you may be like Jesus. And therefore "unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.... Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." And I "beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." (http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/sda/grace_or.htm)

Elle, it's great to hear about your experience regarding assurance of salvation. I think the key is to recognize God's character. He loves us to much to allow us to be lost, unless we're hell bent on it (so to speak). Here are a couple of EGW statements that I've found helpful:



I like the thought that God's love makes it hard to be lost.



The same thought: unless we resist, God will save us.



This one I quoted more at length. I found it especially helpful. Especially the ending. If the burden of our heart is "Lord, I believe: help Thou mine unbelief," we cannot perish. Wonderful thought. Doesn't seem like to much to do, does it?

For so many, the path of salvation seems hard. But Jesus said:



It's easy to be saved, and hard to be lost, if we believe how good the Good News is!

Tom,

Did you miss my post #110391?

Here's what wiki says of "original sin" and Roman Catholic teaching:



This seems to me to be what you think.



What I've said is just what our spiritual forefathers said, which is that Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. Christ accepted the workings of the law of heredity. He took a human nature which is like our human nature. Or, to say it another way, He came in sinful flesh. The inclinations which are inherent to flesh, passed down from generation to generation (this is what it means to accept the workings of the law of heredity means) were in His flesh as well.

As Hibbard said, the world which Christ overcame was in His flesh. This is why we should be over good cheer that He overcame the world, because it's the same world that we have to overcome.

I'm not aware of any SDA, either EGW or any others, who (during her lifetime) used "taint of sin" in the original sin sense that you are speaking of. We didn't believe in original sin, and many sermons were issued against this idea. We do not receive a taint of sin simply be being born. You are inferring this from the EGW statements you've cited, but this can't be a valid inference for reasons I've pointed out many times.

First of all, she would be contradicting her own writings, most specifically "The Desire of Ages," which is the book of books where she sets forth her thoughts regarding Christ (one could add "Christ's Object Lessons" and "Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings" to this list, as this trilogy is about Christ).

Secondly, she endorsed the work of Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, all of whose theology was premised on the idea that Christ took our fallen nature. She even endorsed a specific sermon who was based on that theme.

Thirdly, we know that her contemporaries understood her to believe as they did, which is that Christ took fallen nature with its hereditary inclinations, and that Ellen White was aware of this.

So I think there's way too much baggage involved in trying to apply "taint of sin" to mitigate DA 49.

The quote I cited said that Christ's character did not have a taint of sin, and this was referring to the incarnation. It's not necessary to take the position that "taint of sin" is saying that Christ's heredity was different than ours.



It doesn't appear to me that you think the premise was wrong. Haskell explained the issue here:



I think you agree with the HF premise Haskell states here. Here's what Donnel said:



It appears to me that you agree with Donnell and disagree with Haskell, on the very point they were fighting over.



Haskell didn't mention this.



The issue had to do with tendencies to sin. Donnell's position was that Christ had no such tendencies, and we need to come to the point where we are like Christ in this regard, which is, as far as I can tell, just what your position in. Haskell disputed this by affirming that Christ came in fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations.



Is the temptation itself a sin? Or is the sin in the "evil of our own hearts"? What about temptations which come from the flesh itself, as opposed to from our evil hearts? Is it a sin to have any temptation generated by the flesh?



There's a couple of issues I have in mind. I'll go into them after you answer my question, which you still haven't. Actually there are two questions. I'm interested in your thinking on both.



I take it this is rhetorical.



I'm just interested in inherited tendencies in regards to my question.

Although it’s difficult to understand exactly what they mean by original sin, one thing is certain: original sin is “effaced by baptism” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm section “Nature of Original Sin”), and this is the basis for infant baptism. Therefore, original sin can’t be defined as concupiscence, as Luther and Calvin defined it (which I think would be equivalent to “sinful tendencies”), because concupiscence still remains in the person baptized.


If I believed all that the SDA spiritual forefathers believed, I would hold semi-arian views. I have to do with the Bible and with the EGW writings.
The point is, your view considers that defective inherited character traits, self-love, propensities of disobedience, and a carnal mind aren’t taints of sin, and I disagree with this.


I think you haven’t read attentively what you posted.


It’s clearly implied in what he said above. We will only become holy in the same sense that Adam was holy in the garden of Eden when we are transformed at Christ’s coming.


Considering that the issue had to do just with this was their mistake, and it’s yours too.


The evil of our own hearts is a sin, and the temptations it generates are, consequently, a sin.
Flesh can mean: 1) body 2) the lower corrupt nature. Which of the two definitions are you referring to?


I really don’t know if He ever had any kind of temptation is this area. However, there are two things I would like to point out: 1) He had the gift of celibacy. 2) I don’t believe He ever looked at someone and felt the desire to have sex with that person, for He Himself said this is mental adultery.


No, I don’t believe Christ inherited any such sinful tendencies. Besides, Mary was not even married when she conceived Him.

Your response went elsewhere. You agree with what wiki said, right?



The semi-arian views thing is rather a red herring. It's not clear what our forefathers believed. This is debated. Waggoner has like two statements about this. There's one in "Christ And His Righteousness" and some other one you found in some article somewhere. In comparison, he has dozens of statements regarding Christ's humanity.

Of course we should deal with the Bible and the SOP, but not in a vacuum, as if Ellen White or the Bible writers existed on some planet all by themselves.



It seems you and others wish to attribute things to the view which haven't been said. That's why I wrote what I did, which is this:



I used none of the language you used. I used the language Ellen White and her contemporaries used. There's a slippery slope in using imprecise language, and then defining that imprecise language with other terms, which leads to ideas which are very far from the original. For example, the idea that Christ had a carnal mind has never been asserted.



Ellen White wrote that Christ, like every child of Adam, accepted the workings of the great law of heredity, which results are shown in the history of His ancestors. I think this is very easy to understand. Haskel, in reading from "The Desire of Ages" commented: "This is fallen nature, with its hereditary inclinations." Once again, easy to understand.



It seems there's no difference in substance in what you believe and Donnell's position. Just semantics. Donnell said:



This was the essence of the disagreement. In order to be ready for Christ's Second Coming, we need to not have any tendencies to sin, including hereditary tendencies, to be like Christ, who had no such tendencies to sin. This is the same argument you made.

Haskell met this argument by pointing out that the concept they had concerning Christ was incorrect. Christ came in fallen humanity, with its tendencies. This was the bone of contention, and on this issue, you agree with the HF people and disagree with Haskell.



It's clear from Haskell's response, and how he proceeded (as well as the other SDAs who worked against this teaching) that this was the bone of contention.



I'm referring to the hereditary inclinations we have received genetically. Is it your contention that any temptations that come from hereditary inclinations is in itself sin? So even if we so "no" to the temptation, we've still sinned anyway, because we even had the temptation?



Ok, you answered one question but not the other. Regarding the question as to whether Christ was tempted sexually, you have answered that you don't know. However, you haven't answered the other question, which is if Christ ever felt the desire to have sex. Can you answer this one too please?

Regarding your comment, it's a bit unclear what you are saying. Christ said that looking at someone with intent is mental adultery. He didn't say seeing someone and feeling a desire to have sex is mental adultery. You said neither "look to lust" (clear intent) nor "saw" (clearly no intent) but "look" which is not clear one way or the other.

Tom,

1) It’s clear that I don’t agree with the catholic view of original sin (that it is a “lack of holiness” which can be effaced by baptism), but with Calvin's and Luther's view (that it is the concupiscence - inclination toward sin - with which we are born, which I understand to be the same as “sinful tendencies”).

2) I wasn't mentioning something you had said, but the consequences of sin with which we are born - defective inherited character traits, self-love, propensities of disobedience, and a carnal mind (in fact, I consider them all as synonyms). I said I consider them as taints of sin. Should I understand that you consider a carnal mind to be a taint of sin, but that you don’t consider the others as such?

3) You insist in asserting that I hold the same view as the holy flesh movement, even though I have clearly stated how my position is different. Now I wish to ask you a couple of questions. I’ve explained clearly that the sinful nature consists of more than one element (that is, more than sinful tendencies). Do you disagree with this? I’ve explained clearly that it would be impossible to achieve holy nature by just removing sinful tendencies. Do you disagree with this?

4) You asked me if any temptations that come from hereditary inclinations is in itself sin, even if we say “no” to the temptation. Well, I consider my sinful thoughts/desires as sins, and confess them as sins.

5) Of course if you see your spouse and feel a desire to have sex, this is not mental adultery. However, if you feel the desire to have sex with someone who is not your spouse, this is mental adultery. Christ didn’t have a spouse, so no, I don’t think He ever felt the desire to have sex with a specific person. There are normal sexual urges of the body, but there are other ways to satisfy the libido besides sex.

Ok, you believe in original sin, but the Protestant version, not the Catholic version.



I think you're mixing genetic things with non-genetic things here, as well as things with which are are born with things we develop. I guess basically I don't agree with the concept of original sin. I think that's our basic difference. If one believe in original sin, it wouldn't be be possible to believe that Christ took our fallen nature, because if He did, then He would have been born with a taint of sin.



I'm not saying you agree with it in every detail. I'm saying that in terms of the argument that Haskell was raising, you agree with the HF position, both in terms of the basic premise, and in the logic used.



I'll have to consider what you said earlier:



So sinful flesh would be:
a.A lack of natural enmity against Satan.
b.A weak will to resit evil apart from divine help.
c.A need of having enmity against Satan implanted in us by the Holy Spirit.
d.Tendencies to sin.

Yes, I agree with this. I think Christ took our nature, which has these features, upon His sinless nature, which does not. However Christ relied upon divine help to overcome, by faith, just as we must.



I'm not asking about sinful thoughts or desires, but of temptations. Do you think the temptations are sin? Actually, I if you agree with the concept of original sin you've already answered this question.



You're saying Christ felt a desire to have sex, but not with a person?

If you believe Christ did not feel a desire for sex, I don't see how you wouldn't know if Christ was tempted sexually. You're answer would have to be know; at least, He wasn't tempted in any normal way (because normal sexual temptations involve the desire to have sex).

Regarding the question if you feel a desire for sex for someone who is not your spouse that this is mental adultery, let's consider a somewhat different situation. I'm interested in finding at what point we disagree. Say a person is dating another, but not married yet. Is it a sin to feel a desire to have sex with that person?

Tom, thank you for your kind words and the quoted texts to give me encouragement in regards to my recent assurance of salvation. This assurance, made me talk differently and that's why I laughed at myself with joy, that I can now talk with assurance. Praise be to Jesus.

It is written that
“Whosoever confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” 1Jn 4:15.

This is call “the mystery of God” which Paul explains in the NT and also is mentioned in
Rev 10:7 that by the sound of the 7th trumpet, "the mystery of God will be finish, as he had declared to his servants the prophets"(144,000).

The mystery of God is clearly define in Col 1:26,27, it is Christ in you. Which is the incarnation of Christ in human flesh.

This is how Jesus Glorified His Father, by having the mind of His Father in Him. So is the way we Glorify Jesus, by having His mind in us, so that’s the only way we’re going to be able to show the whole Wide World that God Loves them. Jn 17:5,6,22,23 That's is done only through "Confession of Faith" .

When Christ is in Us, not by our own effort and merits, and how much our mind has been transformed, and how well we keep the Sabbath, or how well we eat, and etc…, but by only through the incarnation of Christ in us, then the whole world will have heard the Gospel preach to them, and only at that time, it will be finish and the door of probation will close.

What does it means to “confess that Jesus is the Son of God”? It’s via confession of faith based on established facts. Here’s a list of a few:




YES! COL 69 depends solely on the mystery of God -- Christ in us -- Through the victory of Christ Jesus ONLY . The victory comes through the blood of Christ shed on the cross. The established facts found in the Bible are based on the death of Christ and His victory on earth. Has nothing to do with us. We are naked, and our robes are filty rags, only through the blood of Jesus is there victory.

When we confess this faith with our lips, Then Christ lives in us. Later on I'll develop further how Christ in us changes us, and how much is changed and etc...


I think the sealing is the factor that is different from previous generation. I still need further studies on this, but this is what I get up to now. Previous generation have the victory in Christ if they make the confession of faith based on established facts. This confession of faith needs to be done daily and we have the promise of God in us for that day.

Revelation mentions a sealing. So I think the last generation will be sealed in the sence that the mind of Christ will be stamped in our brain, and sin will be totally repulsive to us. Our bodies are not changed tough and that's why we will be changed later on, but our mind will be sealed with the mind of Christ. I believe the 144,000 are being sealed today and when they all will be sealed, that's when the great tribulation will start.