|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,202
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
6 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Kevin H, 3 invisible),
2,747
guests, and 8
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: William]
#110453
03/25/09 08:17 PM
03/25/09 08:17 PM
|
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019
2500+ Member
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
|
|
Thanks William for bringing this reference up. I had to look it up to know what it was about. Here's someone describing 3 different views of the nature of Christ. I was encouraged and blessed by Woodrow Whidden’s take on Ellen White’s understanding of the humanity of Christ. Whidden wrote a 33 page chapter in “Ellen White and Current Issues” Symposium, Volume 2 2006, a book published by the Center for Adventist Research at Andrews University. Whidden’s chapter, “The Humanity of Christ Debate - What Did Ellen White Teach?,” begins with the three main interpretations within the Adventist church about the humanity of Christ. #1. the traditional or historical Christology. This view asserts that Jesus came into the world with a fallen human nature. More specifically, Christ had the human nature of Adam after the fall. This was a nature not only weakened physically by the fall but it was also a nature that had tendencies to sin. Of course Christ never sinned, but the historical Christology proponents will say that Christ had inclinations to sin. Like us, Christ was prone to sin. However, unlike us, he never sinned. 2. new Christology or pre-fall position. This position is espoused by the authors of the book, Questions on Doctrine. This controversial and ground-breaking book was published in the 1950s by the Adventist church. The authors of this book attested that Jesus took Adam’s pre-fall sinless human nature. Thus, Jesus did not have our tendency to sin. 3. The alternative pre-fall Christology and it is the position he holds. In this view, Jesus took Adam’s human nature after the fall. This is in agreement with the traditional Christology position. However, the alternative pre-fall Christology departs from the traditional Christology by saying that Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam - that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. So, what did Jesus inherit in Adam’s fallen nature? The pre-fall Christology theologian would say that Christ inherited our physical weaknesses. For example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations. Christ did not come “in power and splendor,” or even with the sinless nature of Adam…
This does not imply, however, that Jesus inherited “evil tendencies” from Adam. Although the body of Christ was subject to physical deterioration and inherited the weaknesses of man’s physical constitution , He inherited none of the inclinations to evil associated with fallen human nature. Here’s the important thing to grasp. Physically, Christ was like us - frail, weak, prone to get sick if we don’t take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging. But morally, Christ was unlike us - He was bent towards goodness while we are bent towards sin. In the next couple of days, I’ll go through Whidden’s chapter. He gives evidence that Ellen White held the alternative pre-fall Christology. Also, we’ll look in the Bible and find that it teaches this interpretation. So it looks like Tom is holding View #1, and Rosangela & apparently EGW held View #3. Personally, I believe in View #3 is the only one possible, especially when applied to baby Jesus.
Blessings
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Rosangela]
#110455
03/25/09 08:37 PM
03/25/09 08:37 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Call it “original sin” if you will. The concept is just that a moral/spiritual sinful nature is transmitted, since Adam, from parents to children. This moral/spiritual sinful nature is condemned by God. Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. So whatever our sinful nature is, Christ took, since He took "our sinful nature." The concept of original sin involves the idea that one is guilty apart from volition. That is, simply the act of being requires having a Savior. So if Christ's human nature was like ours, He also would need a Savior. Therefore Christ's human nature must have been different than ours. “Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God.” {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7} Here's a similar statement: Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. He united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. He united himself with the temple. "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," because by so doing he could associate with the sinful, sorrowing sons and daughters of Adam. (YI 12/20/00) This degraded, defiled human nature is the one Christ took. Christ was born of a woman, born "under the law." Romans 5 clearly teaches this. Ellen White says human beings are “born in sin.” If that wasn’t the case, babies wouldn’t need a Saviour. When Adam fell, the race fell, and all in the race need a Savior. In Adam, all are condemned. The Good News is that in Christ all are justified. He arose from the tomb enshrouded with a cloud of angels in wondrous power and glory--the Deity and humanity combined. He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race of men to favor with God. (1SM 343) Therefore 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.(Romans 5:18) But since the first Adam took his place, there has been a change, and humanity is sinful humanity. The power of righteousness has been lost. To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. He became, not a man, but He became flesh; He became human, and gathered all humanity unto Himself, embraced it in His own infinite mind, and stood as the representative of the whole human family. (Prescott sermon) Why didn’t you comment on the EGW quotes I posted? Preguiça. “These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death.” {13MR 14.1} Waggoner wrote this: So Adam died, and because of that, every man born into the world is a sinner, and the sentence of death is passed upon him. Judgment has passed upon all men to condemnation, and there is not a man in this world but has been under the condemnation of death. The only way that he can get free from that condemnation and that death is through Christ, who died for
him and who, in His own body, bore our sins upon the cross. He bore the penalty of the law, and suffered the condemnation of the law for us, not for Himself, for He was sinless.(Studies in Romans) I think this is the same thought EGW expressed. “Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death.” {9MR 236.1} This looks similar. As related to Adam, we receive no good thing. Only in Christ do we receive life, peace, righteousness, etc.
“Yet he [Seth] was a son of Adam, like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin.” {ST, February 20, 1879 par. 1}
Regarding "born in sin," here is a parallel passage: Concerning the creation of Adam it is said, "In the likeness of God made He him;" but man, after the Fall, "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." While Adam was created sinless, in the likeness of God, Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents.(PP 80) So EGW's point had to do with Seth's inheriting the fallen nature of his parents. Again I have a couple of questions for you. Is it your contention that we aren't born with a sinful spiritual/moral nature? Isn't a sinful/spiritual moral nature condemned by God? Of our nature, it is written: You cannot bring up your children as you should without divine help; for the fallen nature of Adam always strives for the mastery. (AH 205) I believe this was the same situation for Christ. He took a human nature which, apart from divine help, would have turned Him away from God. In asking if we are born with a moral/spiritual nature, I'd want to know that is defined. If this is dealing with hereditary inclinations, I'd say yes. If this is dealing with character, I'd so no. T: I don't think they would have disagreed with anything you said. Basically you're both on the same page regarding original sin, which explains Haskell's reaction.
R:Ah, they wouldn't? So they would agree with me that it’s impossible to achieve holy nature by just removing sinful tendencies? And they would agree with me that they would only achieve holy flesh at Christ’s coming? You clearly aren’t being honest in your arguments and analyses, therefore there is no longer any basis for the discussion of this subject. I don't think it's fair for you to characterize me as having been dishonest. You asked for my opinion, so I've told you what think. I think, in terms of substance, you're similarities with them are great, and your differences minor. You and they agree with original sin, which is the big thing. You both perceive that Christ had no tendencies to sin, whether inherited or not, and that this is the condition that the 144,000 must obtain. I think you're differences are mostly semantical, having to do with how you define "holy flesh." (and, of course, with the fanaticism). Obviously our perspective on things is very different. I would attribute our differences to that rather than dishonesty. There are a number of interpretations you provide to Ellen White's statements which I find simply unbelievable, such as that "Letters have been coming to me" (speaking about Christ's taking our human nature when she was traveling with Jones and Waggoner) is talking about something other than what Jones and Waggoner were preaching, but I don't attribute these interpretations to a lack of honesty but of perception. I've cited what Haskell said, and what Donnell said, and it seems clear to me that you agree with Donnell and disagree with Haskell. T:This isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking if you are dating someone, and being around that person arouses a sexual desire, if that's a sin. Not a future desire to express love physically, but a present desire to do so.
R:In my opinion this is mental adultery. I never had a desire to have sex at that moment before marriage. I understand things are more difficult for men, but is your contention that it’s impossible for a man not to have this kind of desire? I don't see anything wrong with the desire to have sex with someone you're dating and have the intention of marrying. It seems very odd to me that one would think of this as being a sin. It would be a sin to feed or act upon the desire. Do you think it is a sin to be sexually attracted to the person you are dating? So this means "no," doesn't it? You don't believe Christ ever felt a desire for sex.
I don’t think He ever felt the desire to have sex with a specific person. I think it’s probable He was tempted in this area by Satan’s sinful suggestions. I don't understand why you are making the distinction between having a desire for sex and having a desire for sex with a specific person. What sort of sex would Christ have a desire for, if not the sort of sex which involves a specific person? Given that Christ had no desire for sex, Satan's suggestions wouldn't have any chance of success, would they? Why would he waste his time tempting Christ on something which was not desirable?
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Elle]
#110456
03/25/09 09:07 PM
03/25/09 09:07 PM
|
|
|
Quite welcome, Elle. Yes, Whidden's paper asserted many things, some of which Kevin Paulson refuted in his own rebuttal. We've clearly drawn our lines in the sand, eh?
Despite our positions, Zurcher's scholarly classic, a full 300 pages, by sheer volume remains the academic standard on the history of the humanity of Christ debate.
For the record, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone suggesting Ellen White was a prelapsarian and believed in original sin. Quite a shock, really. But I'm listening.
William
Last edited by William; 03/25/09 09:16 PM.
:: Harmony not hate leads your opponent's mind to wisdom; beating him there always with tender heart. —Anonymous
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: William]
#110457
03/25/09 09:18 PM
03/25/09 09:18 PM
|
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019
2500+ Member
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
|
|
Please William do share with us what view you hold. BTW. Welcome to the forum. It's nice to have individual from a country known for their politeness and gentle behavior. Do you have any children? 
Blessings
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Elle]
#110458
03/25/09 09:50 PM
03/25/09 09:50 PM
|
|
|
Please William do share with us what view you hold. Of course, my pleasure. Unequivocally postfall through and through. I often chuckle (perhaps in pain?) when I consider the aftermath of QOD and Froom's stated purpose of "changing the impaired image of Adventism," and recall the backroom story surrounding his infamous subtitle, Christ "took sinless nature of Adam before fall," all of which may help you understand (in part) why I don't mind being called "hardcore" postlapsarian. Among other things. Ha. William
:: Harmony not hate leads your opponent's mind to wisdom; beating him there always with tender heart. —Anonymous
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#110459
03/25/09 09:52 PM
03/25/09 09:52 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
This view asserts that Jesus came into the world with a fallen human nature. More specifically, Christ had the human nature of Adam after the fall. This was a nature not only weakened physically by the fall but it was also a nature that had tendencies to sin. Of course Christ never sinned, but the historical Christology proponents will say that Christ had inclinations to sin. Like us, Christ was prone to sin. However, unlike us, he never sinned. This is inaccurate. Christ did not have inclinations to sin, but He took a fallen nature "with its hereditary inclinations." Because Christ took our fallen nature upon His sinless nature, and because Christ never responded to the temptations of the flesh, it would be misleading to say that Christ had inclinations to sin. Similarly it would be inaccurate to say that Christ was prone to sin. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man.(YI 926) He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. (MM 181) 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. A.In Christ were united the divine nature and the nature of "Adam the transgressor." B.Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature. C.Christ accepted the workings of the law of heredity, the results of which are shown in the history of his ancestors. 2. new Christology or pre-fall position. This position is espoused by the authors of the book, Questions on Doctrine. This controversial and ground-breaking book was published in the 1950s by the Adventist church. The authors of this book attested that Jesus took Adam’s pre-fall sinless human nature. Thus, Jesus did not have our tendency to sin.
3. The alternative pre-fall Christology and it is the position he holds. In this view, Jesus took Adam’s human nature after the fall. This is in agreement with the traditional Christology position. However, the alternative pre-fall Christology departs from the traditional Christology by saying that Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam - that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. 2 and 3 are just a difference in semantics. It's basically the original sin idea. This is what the whole thing comes down to; do we believe in original sin or not? This impacts righteousness by faith as well. What happened with 2 was 2 was found to be untenable in the light of EGW's writings. So the wording of the idea was tweaked, so it is not asserted that Christ took a "sinful nature" but the meaning is a "sinless nature." SDAism is the only denomination that has the idea that a fallen nature can mean a nature without tendencies to sin. Amazing! And the only reason this exists is because of Ellen White statements. The content of our belief is no different than that of Evangelicals (except some Evangelicals believe Christ could have sinned), but the expression of the idea is different. The Evangelicals would say the same thing as #2. So it looks like Tom is holding View #1, and Rosangela & apparently EGW held View #3. 2 and 3 are the same (except for the wording; 2 is a more accurate wording, but unacceptable because of EGW quotes). A problem with asserting that Ellen White believed 3 (or 2) is the historical setting. For example she endorsed Jones, Waggoner and Prescott whom all believed 1, endorsing them on this very subject. For example, she endorsed a specific sermon by Prescott called "The Word Became Flesh" the theme of which was #1. Just on the face of it the idea that the entire church was contrary to the idea of original sin, except for Ellen White (who was in favor of it), but she never gave expression to this in a way that those around her could notice, only to have her true feelings discovered many years after her death is, to say the least, implausible.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: William]
#110460
03/25/09 10:07 PM
03/25/09 10:07 PM
|
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019
2500+ Member
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
|
|
Please William do share with us what view you hold. Of course, my pleasure. Unequivocally postfall through and through. I often chuckle (perhaps in pain?) when I consider the aftermath of QOD and Froom's stated purpose of "changing the impaired image of Adventism," and recall the backroom story surrounding his infamous subtitle, Christ "took sinless nature of Adam before fall," all of which may help you understand (in part) why I don't mind being called "hardcore" postlapsarian. Among other things. Ha. William William, I wish I could laugh with you, but I can't even understand what you wrote.  It went way over my head. Could you simplify and paraphrase the above for someone with a "French Accident"
Blessings
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: William]
#110461
03/25/09 10:10 PM
03/25/09 10:10 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Hey, William! Enjoying your posts. (Elle)Can you tell me how you or I can show God's character? Give me practical illustration. I have a good one in mind, but takes a little time to write up. Just letting you know, this is a great question, and on my mind.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#110462
03/25/09 11:00 PM
03/25/09 11:00 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Moved up from page 53. She seems to have believed that it is possible and necessary to crucify certain unholy desires and inclinations. In such cases, they totally cease to tempt and annoy. But she also makes it clear that the remaining sinful desires and inclinations must be reined in and subjected to the control of a sanctified will and reason and conscience. In such cases, they continue to tempt and annoy, but are not cherished or acted out. Finally, and best of all, she makes it wonderfully clear that God implants, at the moment of rebirth, new desires, new tastes, new motives, new tendencies, new affections, and new appetites with which we are able to cultivate sinless traits of character. Mike, So when you have an unholy desire you don’t consider it a sin and don’t see any need to confess it? Yes, it is a sin when I have an unholy desire and it must be confessed. However, there is a difference between "having" an unholy desire versus an unholy thought and feeling tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus. Do you agree? And, do you agree all temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings? If not, how, then, do you think people become consciously aware of the fact they are being tempted? R: One of the quotes you posted says, “A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” Another one says, “The thorns in the heart must be uprooted and cast out, for good and evil cannot grow in the heart at the same time. Unsanctified human inclinations and desires must be cut away from the life as hindrances to Christian growth.” Amen! However, this isn't true of all hereditary and cultivated inclinations to evil which clamor for sinful expression. The other quotes I posted above make this point painfully clear. How do you reconcile them with the idea we are guilty in the sight of God until we rid ourselves of all sinful inclinations to evil?
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#110468
03/26/09 01:01 AM
03/26/09 01:01 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Here are the quotes I think MM is referring to: the angel: "Sacrifice all for God. Self must die. The natural desires and propensities of the unrenewed heart must be subdued." {1T 507.4}
What is it to sow to the flesh? It is to follow the desires and inclinations of our own natural hearts. Whatever may be our profession, if we are serving self instead of God we are sowing to the flesh. {TMK 92.2}
The whole being must be consecrated to God, for our precious Saviour never shares a divided heart. Our inclinations and desires must be under the control of the Spirit of God, and then we shall be strengthened to fight the good fight of faith. {TMK 92.5}
Painful it must be to the lower nature, crossing, as it does, the natural desires and inclinations; but the pain may be lost sight of in a higher joy. {CG 255.2}
The thorns in the heart must be uprooted and cast out, for good and evil cannot grow in the heart at the same time. Unsanctified human inclinations and desires must be cut away from the life as hindrances to Christian growth. {Ev 347.2}
It is possible to inculcate the principles of righteousness, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little, until the desires and inclinations of the heart are in harmony with the mind and will of God. {HP 212.4}
Of ourselves, we are not able to bring the purposes and desires and inclinations into harmony with the will of God; but if we are "willing to be made willing," the Saviour will accomplish this for us, "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." {AA 482.3}
While we yield ourselves as instruments for the Holy Spirit's working, the grace of God works in us to deny old inclinations, to overcome powerful propensities, and to form new habits. {COL 353.1}
Unholy passions must be crucified. They will clamor for indulgence, but God has implanted in the heart high and holy purposes and desires, and these need not be debased. It is only when we refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience that we are dragged down. {GW 127.3}
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
