Elle,

I think it is important to be careful how we word things, so I'm going to pick on a point or two here.

Jesus was the "only begotten" but not the "only" son. John 1:12, and many other passages tell us we can be sons of God. Being a "son of God" is an honor bestowed only upon those who "receive Him." The term "receive" here is loaded with meaning, of course.

The next point I would be cautious about is "the realization that we can't overcome." Who is "we"? God and me = we, and we can overcome!

As for "I", Paul says "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me." Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." James reiterates this another way, saying, "Do not err, my beloved brethren." "If ye love me, keep my commandments." All of these are Divine commands, and according to Mrs. E. G. White, "all His biddings are enablings" (COL 333).

In other words, there are two ditches to avoid here: 1) to think I can go it alone, and succeed; and 2) to think success is not possible.

I firmly believe victory is possible: Victory over every sin. I do NOT believe that we will ever be safe this side of Heaven without constant prayer to God for strength. We can never hope to trust to ourselves, as if we had already attained. Nevertheless, we can be perfect. If this were not so, then Jesus would never have asked it of us.

Matter of fact, the quote I referenced above is worth more than a passing mention. We may all know it by heart, but it bears repeating. Here it is:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Arnold, I am in total agreement with Tom on this point. Yes, Jesus had a “bent to evil” in that He took upon Himself our sinful flesh nature. Having a “bent to evil” in this sense in no way means Jesus Himself was inclined to evil or desired to sin. It’s like the difference between believers partaking of the divine nature being divine in nature.

IOW, just because we partake of the divine nature and are able to work the works of God it does not mean we are divine in nature. In the same way, just because Jesus took upon Himself our sinful flesh nature and had to resolutely resist its inherent, natural clamorings for sin it does not mean He was sinful in nature. Nor does it mean having sinful flesh nature corrupted or contaminated Him in any way.

Of course the same is true of born again believers who are abiding in Jesus and who have reached the point where, like Jesus, they are living in perfect harmony with everything Jesus commanded and exemplified in His life and teachings. That is, having sinful flesh nature in no way corrupts or contaminates them. They are in the sight of God spotless, blameless, and without fault or guile. Amen! Thank you Jesus!

This is not to say that those who reach “the sinless condition in which Adam lived before the Fall” (described above) have divested themselves of the bent to evil they inherited at birth (i.e. sinful flesh nature). Sister White makes it painfully clear that we shall have to fight “to subdue and to subject” (not eliminate) our inherited inclination to sin to a sanctified will and mind for as long as we draw breath this side of Paradise Restored. Again, no one is corrupted or contaminated who wages such warfare successfully in Christ.

Do you agree?

PS - Teresaq wrote, "a bent toward evil implies wanting evil". I agree in the sense sinful flesh truly does "want" us to express and experience our innocent and legitimate needs in sinful ways. For those who are abiding in Jesus it not they who want to sin but rather it is their sinful flesh that wants them to sin. Of course sinful flesh cannot actually commit a sin; but it can, and does so vehemently, communicate to us its insatiable desire for us to sin. Is this how you see it?

Thank you for the invitation. I'd like to continue our discussion on the other thing, however (that is, regarding Christ in us/victory, etc.; I'll comment on a separate post).

Regarding history and sources, the book William mentioned is invaluable: "Touched With His Feelings," by Zurcher. That gives a complete survey as to what the SDA church believed regarding Christ's humanity, as well as chronicling how the change came into the church. There are many people like yourselves who don't know how this happened. I'll let you research this yourself, if interested, but just make the short comment that it didn't come into the church through Ellen White's writings (i.e., there were outside influences involved -- by outside I mean outside the SDA church).

Regarding the comment that the truth will surely be given to the 144K, this tried to happen in 1888. God gave such truth, but it didn't blossom because it was rejected.



This is referencing the message given to Jones and Waggoner to "prepare them to stand in the great day of God," which is a reference to the 144k. There are many such references from the SOP. So God has already sent the truth you are referring to.

Regarding what I believe, I believe that Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature, the same way our church as a whole did until things started to change towards the middle of last century. Prescott said that Christ "came in sinful flesh" and Ellen White endorsed his sermon which taught this as "truth separated from error," so she clearly agreed with what Prescott said. That Christ came in sinful flesh was not an off-hand observation, but was the title and theme of the sermon.

A. T. Jones delivered a bunch of sermons at the 1896 General Conference session which goes into detail as to what it means to say that Christ took our sinful nature. I notice a lot of confusion on this point (such as mixing up "mind" with "flesh" and so forth), so I think a careful reading of these sermons would be greatly helpful. This link doesn't seem to be working, but maybe it's a temporary thing: (http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/sermons/1895-general-conference-sermon-17).

You can find them here if you dig around: www.adventistarchives.org/DocArchives.asp

For example, regarding Jesus not being like us, this is discussed in detail.

Haskell, in confronting the Holy Flesh arguments (similar to what one hears today) read from "The Desire of Ages," and commented that the humanity of Christ was "fallen humanity, with its hereditary inclinations," which is, I think, a good way of putting things.

Basically Christ confronted the same temptations we do, temptations from within, but overcame them by faith.

The idea that Ellen White believed in original sin isn't defensible when the historic evidence is considered.

That's a quick summary of what I believe.

By way of a personal observation, it strikes me that you've had negative experiences with those who hold the post-lapsarian view, which I also have. If one looks at the sermons of Jones, Waggoner, Prescott and others of the time, as well as Ellen White's comments, one sees an emphasis on Christ's sharing in our sorrows, as well as the importance of Christ's revealing God.

I'm mentioning this because of comments you've made regarding dwelling on performance. I agree with you completely on this point. I think a fixation on our performance, or over-emphasis on Christ as example can only lead to a negative experience.

I believe in focusing, above all else, on God's character.

Hi Green, It's nice to have someone that watches over me. I do need lot's of correction in my writings and expression of thoughts and welcome you anytime.

I agree, I should of clarified that, but in my context, I think I made it clear it was "we" as human being without God indwelling in us.

Sorry to put you on the spot and could you clarify the following :
1. what is the sin that you are referring to?
2. What's the perfection are you referring to?
3. What did Jesus actually asked of us?
4. What do you think EGW mean by cooperating?

Do you agree in the description of the born again man described by EGW in COL 98-99? Our cooperation extends by surrendering our will to the mind of Jesus. Then Jesus will work in us to will and to do.

That's why I want to make an emphasis on that it's Jesus 100% that wills in us, It's Jesus 100% that does in us, it's Jesus 100% life and blood that has justified us, etc... I'm not promoting to not keep the commandments, but to put on Christ who was the only divine-human man able to keep them.

I don't believe that Victory is possible. I believe that Victory has already been won. There's a difference. The first statement has no power, the other has all the power to overcome the world.

Jesus has already lived the perfect life that justifies us. Jesus already resisted all temptation. Jesus already bared all our sin. The Father already accepted Jesus life and death and now sees us sinless, spotless and accepted us as Son of God. Jesus already died the death that was ours. Jesus has already overcame the devil and rendered him powerless. And so much more.... All is ours to those who believe.

The question is do we believe these? When we pray or talk or write, is this belief in our language? If it's not, then we're not walking in the faith and confessing Christ.

Pastor Liversidge says, our biggest lack is that we don't move into faith every morning. Our confession of faith is weak if existent. Our prayers should be marked with faith by thanking God and claiming all that he has established through the life and death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Acknowledging our inability, our lack of power, our condition...and our need of Jesus. Then the mystery of God happens, and God's spirit dwells in us, to will and to do.

The partaking of the divine nature is a good analogy, MM.

I understand that "the indwelling of the mind of Christ" means that our minds become like His, which is to say, we learn to think like He thinks.



You clearly believe it's a metaphor too, which I'll make clear later on in this post.



No problem. Saying things we agree on is allowed too (if it's kept to a minimum).



If you mean of ourselves, I agree 100%.



I agree with this too.



Ok, here's the bottom line. A new neruo-pathway is formed. I agree; this is what happens. This represents a change in our thinking. This is what the metaphor means: a new neuro-pathway is formed.

Now this would have been rather hard for a first century Jew to say, right? Even today, many people wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. And so we read instead about having the mind of Christ, or the Spirit indwelling. What does this mean? It means our thinking changes, or, to use your words, new neuro-pathways are formed.



This seems a little fuzzy. We read in Scripture:



So there's no question that we are to overcame as Christ overcame, nor that it is we who overcome, as Christ says "to him who overcomes." Now the *credit* for our overcoming, as was as the capacity or ability to do so is all of Christ. But our free will is involved, so we do enter into the question.

Here's a quote from the SOP which deals with what I believe receiving the mind of Christ, or the indwelling of the Spirit, means.



I think she could just as well have written, "This is what it means to receive the mind of Christ" (or the indwelling of the Spirit).

That is true, as far as I know.


However, this is completely untrue. There is no potlapsarian in me at all, since I DID NOT inhale.

You wicked boffin—I honestly cannot believe I didn't see it coming. Absolutely a winner, mate!

William

I think you still missed a part of my point. I am trying to say that we should be positive in our speech that victory is possible. We can overcome. The Canaan land does have giants, be we are well able to go up and possess it. This is the "spies report" that we should be making, rather than to say "it is impossible."


Every hereditary and cultivated defect of character.

Living a sinless life.

That we stop trying to excuse our sins, stop thinking that we, as mere mortals, can never hope to life sin-free, and simply obey God's commandments. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Jesus, our example, lived a perfect life, without sin. He did it to show us how we may do the same.

I'll let her answer that:


The statement I quoted above does not appear to say it's Jesus "100%." Let me ask you, here, what does it mean to "put on Christ?"

This is incorrect. Yes, a victory was won at the cross. There is no question but that the cross was a BIG victory, and required for our salvation. BUT...the cross was not the victory I need in my life. I am still struggling with sin. I am still fighting. The war is not over yet.

More significantly, if Christ had won all the victory that was necessary for me, should that not be also true for every soul that ever lived? How, then, is it that not everyone is saved? Is not Christ's blood sufficient for all?

When you say "Jesus had already lived a perfect life," do you mean that you are not now required to do so? When you say that "Jesus already [bore] all our sin," do you think it does not matter whether or not you still have sin in your life? When you say "Jesus has already [overcome] the devil and rendered him powerless," does this mean that you and I need not overcome the devil? Why does the Scripture say, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you?"


We must have faith. But we must be careful where we place that faith. I do not believe some of the things others may choose to believe on this issue. There are many in the church today who say simply "God's grace is sufficient," and who use this as a cover for their imperfect lives.

Mrs. White was clear. She says there is no excuse for sinning. She says those who are preparing for translation to heaven must overcome every defect of character. She says Christ's robe of righteousness will not cover over blemishes in our character. I'll find the statements later, if you wish. (I'm in a hurry again.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

While respectful of Elle's gospel understanding, in my opinion, this even-tenored explanation is touchingly brilliant, Green.

William