I agree with you. I also believe the "mechanism" involved Him becoming human and taking our fallen, sinful, guilty, condemned nature. In this way He bore the sins of the world from the moment He became human. The same "mechanism" enabled Him to be tempted the same way we are, and for the same reasons we are.

Which form of guilt condemns us in final judgment - inherited or cultivated? Quotes please. I looked long and hard for a quote from the Bible and the SOP to support the idea that we inherit the sin and guilt Adam incurred when he ate the forbidden fruit, and that we must, therefore, repent of his sin so that God can pardon and save us.

I like how you compared and contrasted the two views you articulated. And, I agree with your conclusions. However, my view is different in key ways.

1. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."

2. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him."

3. "The wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

3. "Sin is the transgression of the law."

4. "All have sinned."

5. "The wages of sin is death."

6. No one can sin for another. Sin incurs guilt. No one can incur guilt for another. Neither sin nor guilt is inherited or transferred.

7. Righteousness is the result of rebirth and right doing. No one can experience righteousness for another. In judgment "they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness."

8. Salvation involves three separate, but interrelated, steps: 1) justification, 2) sanctification, and 3) glorification.

9. Justification frees us from the penalty of sin. It accommodates past sins repented of and pardoned. The benefits of Jesus' shed blood is applied to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. His righteousness takes the place of their sinfulness.

10. Sanctification frees us from the power of sin. It is the lifelong process of growing in grace and maturing in the fruits of the Spirit. It has nothing to do with sinning and repenting and pardon or gradually outgrowing sinful habits and practices. "Christ in you" results in righteousness by faith and is new, original, and unborrowed.

11. Glorification frees us from the presence of sin. In judgment Jesus will blot out our record and memory of sin and place them upon the head of Satan, the scapegoat, who will perish with our sins and second death in the lake of fire.


12. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." This grace is not inherited. {16MR 100.4}

13. The old nature, born of blood and the will of the flesh, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The old ways, the hereditary tendencies, the former habits, must be given up; for grace is not inherited. {Mar 237.1}

14. But while God can be just, and yet justify the sinner through the merits of Christ, no man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins or neglecting known duties. {FW 100.1}

15. God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul. {FW 100.1}

Just a quickie.


Did Jesus sin? Did Jesus die?

?
Mike, you yourself posted the quote:

"In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in character, but in form and feature." {GC 644.3}

Also, there is the quote I posted in my post #129282:

"God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity." {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

I don't think this is correct. That is, LK is not disagreeing with what Jones said. Also, Gregory is not disagreeing with what Jones said either. Gregory was dealing with a different issue.

Gregory was dealing with the question of whether or not Christ had a human mind. Nobody in our present discussion is taking the point of view that Christ did not have a human mind, so this is a moot point, as far as our discussion is concerned.

When A. T. Jones spoke of Christ's not being made in the likeness of sinful mind, he wasn't arguing that Christ had a human mind, and that it would be incorrect to say that Christ did not.

Gregory, in his comments regarding Christ's having a human mind was directed against the idea that Christ didn't have a human mind, which he made clear by arguing that the Scripture says that Christ grew in wisdom. He (Gregory) said it wouldn't make sense to say that Christ's body grew in wisdom. Therefore it must have been referring to Christ's mind, and Christ therefore had a human mind.

LK was making the argument that Christ could not have had an advantage over us, by being omniscient, which was spoke about in his "loaded gun" analogy. So when LK spoke of Christ's being like us "from the neck up" he was speaking in terms of Christ's not being omniscient.

It's not clear to me why LK would link Christ's not being omniscient to what Christ's assumed human nature was like. The SOP spoke of Christ's taking "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature, and also of Christ's not being able to be tempted as God, but was tempted as we are as man. So it seems to me entirely possible that one could believe that Christ was omniscient, but chose not to use that omniscience, while He lived here in the flesh, but had an assumed human nature which was like our own. Also it seems to me possible that one could believe that Christ had a sinless human nature, such as Adam had before the fall, yet was not omniscient.

Tendencies are passed by means of influence and DNA.

When Adam and Eve sinned, it did something to their DNA, which was passed on to their descendants. If I develop the ability to play the piano or learn a foreign language, that's not passed on genetically to my offspring, although whatever genetic abilities I had could be. This is correct, isn't it? Assuming so, Adam's case would seem to be a special case.



I think this is a pretty standard idea. That is, through DNA attributes are passed genetically, and by influence they are passed non-genetically.



A tendency towards something that one might or might not act on. For example, one could have perfect pitch, but never become a musician.



How did you find this? This was an interesting article!



This was an interesting sentence. Kind of makes one question how accurate the rest of the article is.



I can see how if the mother has a drug addiction, or is nervous, or angry, etc., that things like this would be passed on, but a cultivated tendency like playing the piano or learning a language; I don't see how that could be passed on as a birth inheritance, other than that one is born into a family of musicians.



I have been asking for an example.

I believe the tendency in the genetic/environment controversy has been swinging more towards the environmental side, and this has been the trend for awhile.



It sounds like you're using "trick" to mean "lie." One can be tempted to do something, knowing what's involved, and choose to do so knowing the consequences, without trickery being involved.



This is certainly true. And among those factors are genetic factors.



Of course, but I don't see why this needs to be pointed out. Jones wasn't arguing these were the same.



I don't understand why this comment either.



Accuracy is important here. What Haskell said was:



The first paragraph is from "The Desire of Ages," the second from Haskell. I think his comment "this is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations" is accurate, and is the issue involved. I think "sinful tendencies" is, at best, vague. If "sinful tendencies" means "hereditary inclinations," and nothing more, then OK, but in that case, why not say "hereditary inclinations"? "Sinful tendencies" gives the impression that Christ did something sinful. That's an impression that's best avoided.

Similarly with "evil desire." That sounds sinful on the face of it. Whereas to be tempted to do some act which is a sin is not sinful, if one resists it. If one is only tempted to do things which one has no desire to do, how is that temptation?



I've never said that Christ had sinful tendencies. This is an area where accuracy is important, and I've tried to be as accurate as I can be. Certainly, to my mind, to say that Christ had sinful tendencies would have a implication that Christ was somehow sinful or did something sinful. Christ was sinless, but took our sinful nature. He was tempted as our human nature is tempted, and had the inherited inclinations that we have, but was in no way sinful.

To put it another way, if one looked at His DNA, it would look like our DNA, not like Adam's DNA; this is how I understand things.

That is, when Adam and Eve sinned, their human nature changed, which impacted their DNA, which was transferred to their offspring. Their pre-fall DNA would look different under a microscope than their post-fall DNA. Jesus' DNA would look like Adam and Eve's post-fall DNA. This is my understanding. Otherwise, I don't see how it could be said that Christ took our sinful nature, or that He accepted the result of the working of the great law of heredity.

No. Yes. It is called a mystery:

The incarnation of Christ is a mystery. The union of divinity with humanity is a mystery indeed, hidden with God, "even the mystery which hath been hid from ages." It was kept in eternal silence by Jehovah, and was first revealed in Eden, by the prophecy that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, and that he should bruise His heel. {6BC 1082.4}

To present to the world this mystery that God kept in silence for eternal ages before the world was created, before man was created, was the part that Christ was to act in the work He entered upon when He came to this earth. And this wonderful mystery, the incarnation of Christ and the atonement that He made, must be declared to every son and daughter of Adam. . . . His sufferings perfectly fulfilled the claims of the law of God (ST Jan. 30, 1912). {6BC 1082.5}

When considered in the context of all the quotes I posted concerning traits, tendencies, and character, it seems clear to me that Ellen believed we are conceived with traits and tendencies that enable us to cultivate a character through repetitious choices and actions, and that it is this very character that will determine our eternal destiny in judgment.

Did you look at the context? The context of the entire article from which this is taken, and especially the immediate context, is dealing with issues of choice.

From a corporate standpoint, one could make the argument that in Adam we receive guilt, since we were all "in Adam", as we were all "in Christ." So, as Levi paid tithes in Abraham, so we sinned "in Adam" and were redeemed "in Christ." This was a much elaborated theme by Prescott. Jones and Waggoner also discussed this. Ellen White made statements dealing with this as well, for example, by Christ's life the entire race of men was restored to favor with God (1SM 343 or 1SM 353, from memory).

However, this wasn't the context of this particular article.