Oh, what's Jesus' and what's ours.

He makes us righteous with his own merits, renewing our hearts in the daily experience of justification by faith. He also imparts his character traits to us: they are his to give, and they become ours when we accept and use them by a living faith of obedience.

That JBF is renewal of our hearts is actually stated in this last week's lesson of this quarter, under the "new creation" of 2 Cor 5:17. That is the actual, genuine Adventist message of salvation from the Bible, though it is almost never uttered in print, let alone preached: there is an experiential element to justification, y'know.

As for selfishness and sinfulness, what do they matter, for Jesus or us, as and when we let God's Spirit in and follow Jesus as Jesus followed his Father. Gal 5:17 is very, very true, as we abide in Jesus. For other times, we have 1 Jn 1:9, should we respond to the Holy Spirit. The faith of Jesus is our motto.

A curious response. Didn't see that coming. Nevertheless, no, we do not abide in Jesus' sinful flesh. Instead, praise the Lord, we abide in Jesus and partake of His divine nature, which is what enables and empowers us to grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. The results of abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature is "righteousness and true holiness" without the stain of sin or selfishness. Possessing sinful flesh does not, in and of itself, cause corruption or contamination. We must indulge its sinful desires to incur guilt and contamination. Remember, Jesus gives us a new nature when we undergo the miracle of rebirth, a nature even better than the one Adam and Eve forfeited in Eden. He also gave us new tastes, new motives, new tendencies, new desires with which we are able to cooperate with the agencies of heaven to reproduce the lovely character traits of Jesus.

Jesus didn't have "sinful flesh!" He was pure and holy from the moment of His birth. He never once sinned. Was His flesh degenerated from the original form that Adam and Eve had? Certainly. But it was still without sin. Did it perhaps cause Him some aches and pains such as we find normal in our existence? Yes. But this is not "sinful," rather "sin-caused." Had it been "sinful," we could not say He was perfect. His was the "perfect" sacrifice, that of the "spotless" and "unblemished" lamb.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course, Mike believes that blemished lambs were "evil" and "cursed," so if Mike truly believed that Jesus had any blemish or sinful flesh, Mike would also be tending toward the belief that Jesus was evil.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It matters in that one who is selfish and sinful has no holiness and righteousness to impute to others.

That's because you don't see the fundamental difference in our beliefs. Maybe we're getting closer to it now.


You are saying that Jesus had selfish, sinful flesh, but He had no "stain of sin or selfishness." Hence, you believe that true converts can have selfishness and yet be holy and righteous.

I believe that selfishness, in any form, is unholy and unrighteous. That's our fundamental difference.


Here it is again. You believe that one can be selfish on the inside, but can be sinless as long as he can keep it from coming out.

I believe that selfishness, whether inside or outside, is sinful.

The difference between us is NOT whether or not the true convert chooses to commit acts of sin. We both agree that they do not, cannot do that.

Neither is the difference over the presence or lack of selfishness in the true believer. We both agree that true believers have inner selfishness.

The difference is that I believe that inner selfishness is sin that must be cleansed by Christ's blood. You believe that inner selfishness is acceptable to God.

Does that make things clearer?

I agree with your logic, but I'll let MM confirm or deny what he believes.

While I'll certainly let Mike speak for himself, I concur in advance with his position
"He...took" means he is the incarnate Son of God, taking as his own a nature that isn't naturally his: thus, he didn't "have" sinful flesh, but he took it to become a man. He took on to his divine nature our sinful nature. He submitted, also, to his Father's Spirit each day: having taken sinfulness he needed daily to turn to God from that sinfulness.

The difference means while he became just like us with sinfully immoral human flesh, he didn't also accept its sinfulness by sinning. This was, primarily, to qualify as Saviour of the world, the blameless Lamb of God; being our Example is relevant only after becoming our Saviour on the tree.

This view of Christ's humanity may be a minority view, today, in the Adventist church (see "Touched with Our Feelings" at your ABC), and in Christiandom - for some non-Adventist theologians do agree with this view, but before 1949 it was the view of our church altogether. That year was the first official publication we put out, Bible Readings for the Home Circle, rev., drawing back from this teaching.

No, Jesus did not accede to the sinfulness of the human flesh he had taken to become a man: that's what righteous by faith, the faith of Jesus, means in moral terms.

Here is what Mike said in another thread as we discussed the issue of the blemished lambs:



As he believes the lamb with a blemish was "evil," and this would have resulted in "sin" for it to be offered, it stands to reason that if Jesus were in any way blemished, that He would also be "evil" and it would have been sin for Him to be offered in sacrifice for us.

I'm curious how Mike will explain this apparent dichotomy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for clarifying your view. I actually caught on sometime last year. You and Rosangela seem to believe the same way. And it looks as though GC believes the same way, too.

I believe people incur guilt and condemnation when they sin, when they act out the unholy desires of their sinful flesh nature. God does not count them guilty and condemned if they do not act out the unholy desires of their sinful flesh nature.

I agree God views the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh nature as sinful. However, I disagree He counts people guilty of sinning because their sinful flesh nature tempts them to indulge its unholy desires. Being tempted by sinful flesh nature is no different than being tempted by evil angels so far as being tempted is concerned, that is, it is not a sin to be tempted. Nor does being tempted cause corruption or contamination.