Blemished offerings were not inherently evil or cursed. But in the context of the temple services they were considered evil and cursed. Jesus did not incur evil and cursed status when He took upon Himself sinful flesh nature. Neither are born-again believers considered evil and cursed because they retain sinful flesh nature. It is not a sin to have sinful flesh nature. Yes, sinful flesh nature is sinful. In this context, however, sinful and sinning are two different realities. Sinful flesh nature cannot sin. It can only tempt us to sin. If we do not act out its unholy desires we do not incur guilt or condemnation.

Wow, your theology is sure different than I've ever heard. It sounds to me like you are saying that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was evil and cursed because He was a blemished lamb, having sinful flesh. Is that what you are saying?

I always understood that Jesus became a curse for us because of the text in Deuteronomy which says:


I've also understood that Jesus became a curse for us becuase He took our sins upon Himself. Our blood was upon Him, just as the blood was placed upon the head of the lamb. The blood didn't make the lamb blemished, but I supposed it could have made the lamb cursed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Careful, now: let's not get lost in the detail.

Jesus was made a curse for us, and not just because he was hanged on a tree: God the Father imputed that curse and imposed between them the barrier of divine wrath against sin. (Whether this separation of Father and Son in judgement of sin for us is possible under the trinity doctrine, that Jesus could die as man only but not as God, is being discussed on the trinity thread, now. )

Really, there are several layers of detail about righteousness and sin in the incarnation and substitution of Jesus for us.

Jesus taking our sinful nature doesn't make him corrupt, since "not for a moment did corruption rest on him". The rule is not: we sin because we're sinners; we're sinners because we sin.

The rule is, correctly: we sin because we're sinful; we're sinners because we sin. Therefore, we have freedom of choice, by the grace and power of God, to choose righteousness at any and every moment, since we are by nature sinful and not sinners.

Jesus brought no personal condemnation on himself by his behaviour: sinful flesh is in itself condemned, but by itself, as MM says, it cannot condemn us - we do that all by ourselves. Thus, both we need a Saviour and Jesus qualified to be Saviour of the world by refusing the sinfulness of his adopted, sinful humanity, producing the character of the blameless Lamb of God.

Any clearer, now?

Jesus was not blemished. Taking sinful flesh nature upon His divine nature did not cause corruption or contamination. He bore the sins of the world in His sinful flesh nature. He did not bare it in His divine nature.

This is where we may divide.

Jesus had sin-degenerated flesh. Jesus had flesh. He took upon himself our flesh, including its aches, pains and weaknesses. However, he had not one single propensity toward sin. The word "propensity" is synonymous with "inclination."

What does the pen of inspiration tell us?

Notice that Mrs. White says "human nature" but does not here say "sinful nature." And here's an interesting statement that implies with a sinful nature, perfection would be impossible:

In light of the above statements, the "knife edge" of the paradox seems to be included in the following:


To me, that implies that having a "sinful nature" must be separate from the concepts of being a "sinner" or even of having "propensities" to sin. It appears that "sinful nature" means something different than we have traditionally thought.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Like newborn believers, Jesus also partook of "the divine nature" and "escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust . . . the sin that dwelleth in me . . . that is, in my flesh". "It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ's nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression." {UL 18.3} Newborn believers are recreated with a new and superior nature and they are, consequently, enabled and empowered to experience "righteousness and true holiness" like Jesus did. Possessing sinful flesh nature, therefore, in no way hinders or prevents growth in grace, nor does it stop believers from "perfecting holiness" "more and more unto the perfect day".

Amen to that.

I really hope this thread doesn't stretch to 100 pages as it has in the past, among others here.

Synonymous???! Nope: propensity means habits built up from practice; inclination means basic sinfulness. Hereditary propensity (below) means the habits of one's ancesters. "In him...was not for one moment...an evil propensity": that means he never practised the sin burdening his adopted, sinful human nature.

We know this from what else she wrote, and the Bible in totality teaches.

Indeed, since we sin because we're sinful - not, 'we sin because we're sinners'! - the difference between being sinful and sinning, for us, is personal choice, not semantics.

Propensities result from inclinations that are acted upon rather than rejected. Therefore, righteousness by faith is truly pragmatic: shall we choose to be like Jesus in our thoughts and deeds, or shall we struggle by ourselves - and fail to be good all by ourselves, or think we cannot mirror/reflect Jesus perfectly, day by day in more and more ways, in this life as grace cannot enable that in us even though we believe? "The faith of Jesus" is a correct translation for Gal 2:20 and Rev 14:12, since that is the very spiritual tool by which we can follow Jesus to the uttermost, whithersoever he leads us.

"Shall we choose to be like Jesus in our thoughts and deeds"? Yes!

"Shall we struggle by ourselves - and fail to be good all by ourselves"? God forbid!

"Shall think we cannot mirror/reflect Jesus perfectly, day by day in more and more ways, in this life?" Certainly not!

"Shall we think grace cannot enable that in us even though we believe?" No way!

This thread is moving faster than I can keep up with. But I'll try to catch up.


Propensity does not mean habits. Even in your own explanation, that wouldn't make sense. It is possible for one to gain inclinations from the habits of his ancestors. But how can he gain his ancestor's habits through heredity? Habits, by definition, are actions, and therefore cannot be passed on.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from the 1828 Webster's dictionary, just a few years before EGW's ministry:

Notice that there is no mention of habits, or even actions. The meaning of propensity is inclination or tendency.

The impetus to change the meaning of propensity is seen below.


Now that we know what propensity means, and more importantly, what it meant in EGW's time, we can understand this better.

True, Jesus never practiced sin. But His holiness runs much deeper than many people think. More than refraining from acts of sin, Jesus did not have the propensity, or inclination, to sin. IOW, not only did He abstain from sin in His thoughts, words, and actions, He did not have even the stain of sin in his passions and desires.

Why are so many people so adamant that Jesus was selfish inwardly? One reason is that they want to excuse their own inward selfishness. They might be able to keep their bodies from sinning, but they know that their thoughts and feelings are undeniably selfish. And since their assurance of salvation is grounded in replicating Christ's experience, they must bring Him down to their level of stunted holiness so that they can say, "Jesus was like us, so we must be OK."

But the fact is that Jesus was more holy than us. We who are selfish can only copy the Pattern, but we will never equal it. Our assurance is not in replicating His righteousness, but in accepting it as a gift. We cannot offer to God the filthy rags of our sinful humanity, so we must rely on Christ's sinlessness.