|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,205
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
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14333
06/27/05 08:07 PM
06/27/05 08:07 PM
|
Senior Member
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 449
England
|
|
Well I don't know if this'll help or not...
Child Guidance, page 490, paragraph 4
Chapter Title: Leading Little Children to Christ
"Children of eight, ten, or twelve years are old enough to be addressed on the subject of personal religion. Do not teach your children with reference to some future period when they shall be old enough to repent and believe the truth. If properly instructed, very young children may have correct views of their state as sinners and of the way of salvation through Christ."
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14334
06/27/05 08:35 PM
06/27/05 08:35 PM
|
Most Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,332
BC, Canada
|
|
People, The debate of your favorite pioneer is intriguing and fun, but lets keep on topic here. All started out on the right path and some went off into other directions contrary to the Advent movement. I have my favorite pioneers as well (Ellen White, Uriah Smith, J.N. Andrews, Joseph Bates, James White, & Stephen Haskell), but I dont go around using them as a mouth piece, but study what they have written and cross reference with the Bible, & SOP, and if it is not consistent then it must be discarded. Maybe, just maybe this can be in the Looking at our Pioneers forum ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) . It is worthy of study for a historical point of view, and I know I will learn something and hope others will benefit as well. Hey maybe we can even generate awareness of our historical roots! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif) Those are my thoughts on the particular pattern I am seeing here. What do you think? God Bless, Will
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14335
06/27/05 09:11 PM
06/27/05 09:11 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I was referencing the pioneers to substantiate the point that the SDA church, and Ellen White in particular, was post-lapsarian, which was on-topic to the subject of the thread. A thread on whether or not we are born sinners is bound to involve a discussion of Christology. So I'm not seeing what's off-topic.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14336
06/27/05 09:38 PM
06/27/05 09:38 PM
|
Most Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,332
BC, Canada
|
|
There has been more than a few times of where one of the pioneers was referenced, and highly recommended because Sister White endorsed them. Now the same theme keeps on popping up, so it does go off topic because the discussion goes into that so and so author was highly endorsed by Sister White, so it must be good.
The topic is about being a born sinner, born sinning etc, not the dynamics of so and so pioneer. Also since I am not a pastor, and have no clue what lapsarian is maybe you could explain exactly what it is. I think it would be a fine addition to have more pioneers and what they wrote with references in the link I posted above. The more access we have to information about our history, and how we can build on the platform the better.
God Bless,
Will
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14337
06/27/05 11:44 PM
06/27/05 11:44 PM
|
OP
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
Ok: I have opened a topic on Waggoner and Jones in the "Looking at Our Pioneers" topic.
I'm getting a bit dizzy with all this highfalutin lingo here. It's fascinating, but.....
My thoughts are:
If two HIV+ adults have a child, the child will have the disease. The symptoms of this disease will soon or later develop.
Sin is a disease; sinning is the symptoms. The disease must be irradicated for the symptoms to stop.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14338
06/28/05 02:10 AM
06/28/05 02:10 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I mentioned Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and Haskell because they were contemporaries of EGW and taught that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall (post-lapsarian, lapse = fall). This was to make the point that there's no way she could have been pre-lapsarian (Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall) because none of her contemporaries were, and she endorsed several of them regarding the very subject of Christology.
The subject of whether or not we are born sinners is bound to involve the human nature of Christ. They are intimately connected. If we are born sinners (i.e. our natures make us sinners in and of itself), then Christ could not have taken our nature, because then He would have been born a sinner, which is impossible.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14339
06/28/05 05:20 AM
06/28/05 05:20 AM
|
Most Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,332
BC, Canada
|
|
You're right Tom. In the back of my mind the thought came to me a while ago that if we are born sinners, then Christ who was made like unto His brethren who knew no sin was a born sinner, and it didn't sit to well with me to say the least. He was made sin for us. Yet it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren. Some things my mind can't comprehend.
God Bless,
Will
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14340
06/28/05 12:39 PM
06/28/05 12:39 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
That’s the whole point. If we are born sinners, and if Christ was born with a spiritual sinful nature like ours, He was also born a sinner, and, therefore, couldn’t be our Saviour. If, on the other hand, we are not born sinners, this means babies and little children don’t need a Saviour.
"The offerings brought to the sanctuary were to be without spot or blemish. Had one stain of sin rested upon our Redeemer, his sacrifice would not have secured the salvation of man." {ST, July 15, 1880 par. 12}
Would it be correct to affirm that a selfish nature is not a stain of sin, if David himself said, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalms 51:5)?
"Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he 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, but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing His will."{SR 57.1}
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14341
06/28/05 03:09 PM
06/28/05 03:09 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
That’s the whole point. If we are born sinners, and if Christ was born with a spiritual sinful nature like ours, He was also born a sinner, and, therefore, couldn’t be our Saviour.
This is not SDA theology. SDA's taught for 100 years that Christ took our sinful nature, that He overcame in that nature, and that we can overcome by faith as He overcame. Ellen White used this exact line of thought dozens of times, and it appears in our books, magaizines and Sabbath School lessons unanimously until 1947. EGW, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, Wilcox, Daniels, Fifield, Nichol, and many others all taught the same thing.
Here's some more from the sermon which EGW witnessed and proclaimed as "truth unmingled with error"
quote:
The theme of redemption will be the science and the song of the eternal ages, and well may it occupy our minds during our short stay here. There is no portion of this great theme that makes such a demand on our minds in order to appreciate it in any degree, as the subject we shall study tonight,—The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Through Him all things became; now He Himself became. He who had all glory With the Father, now lays aside His glory and becomes flesh. He lays aside His divine mode of existence, and takes the human mode of existence, and God becomes manifest in the flesh. This truth is the very foundation of all truth. Let us consider, first, what kind of flesh, for this is the very foundation of this question as it relates to us personally (Heb. 2:14—18, quoted).
"That through death, being made subject to death, 'taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He might, by His dying, destroy him that had the power of death [Heb. 2: 16, quoted] . . So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside...
"God made man a little lower than the angels, but man fell much lower by his sin. Now he is far separated from God; but he is to be brought back again. Jesus Christ came for that work: and in order to do it, He came, not where man was before he fell, but where man was after he fell. . Jesus Christ comes right down to where he is, and meets him there. He takes his flesh and becomes a brother to him. Jesus Christ is a brother to us in the flesh; He was born into the family. .
"He came and took the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh. . 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. .
"Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrously glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, 'for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren' (Heb. 2: 11). He has come into the family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. . " 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a man in heaven now, the man Christ Jesus,—bearing our human nature; but it is no longer a flesh of sin; it is glorified. Having come here and lived in a flesh of sin, He died; and in that He died, He died unto sin; and in that He lives, He lives unto God. When He died, He freed Himself from the flesh of sin, and He was raised glorified. . Jesus Christ, our own brother, the man Christ Jesus, is in heaven, living to make intercession for us
"This union of the divine and the human has brought Jesus Christ very near to us. There is not one too low down for Christ to be there with him. He identified Himself completely with this human family. . One version reads, 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My little brothers, ye have done it unto Me.' Christ looks upon everyone of the human family as His. When humanity suffers, he suffers. He is humanity; He has joined Himself to this family. .
“Jesus Christ thus united Himself with the human family, that He might be with us by being in us, just as God was with Him by being in Him. The very purpose of His work was that He might be in us, and that, as He represented the Father, so the children, the Father, and the Elder Brother might be united in Him. .
" 'Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world' (Matt. 28:20). By being in us, He is with us alway, and that this might be possible, that He might be in us, He came and took our flesh. This also is the way in which the holiness of Jesus works. He had a holiness that enabled Him to come and dwell in sinful flesh, and help sinful flesh by His presence in it; and that is what He did, so that when He was raised from the dead, He was glorified. His purpose was that having purified sinful flesh by His indwelling presence, He might now come and purify sinful flesh in us, and glorify us. He 'shall change our Vile body. that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself' (Phil. 3:21) . .
"Let us enter into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was here. He came and lived here that we might through Him reflect the image of God. This is the very heart of Christianity . .
"By following where He leads, we shall know what Christian experience is, and what it is to dwell in the light of His presence. I tell you, this is a wondrous truth. Human language cannot put more into human thought or language than is said in these words: 'The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,' This is our salvation. . Nothing short of it will meet what we have to meet,—the world, the flesh, and the devil. But He that is for us is mightier than he that is against us. Let us have in our daily lives Jesus Christ, 'the Word' that 'became flesh,' "—W. W. Prescott, Sermon given October 31, 1895
R: If, on the other hand, we are not born sinners, this means babies and little children don’t need a Saviour.
T: This in no way follows. Apart from Christ, the human race would be lost. We all have sinful flesh, and apart from the grace of God, we can do nothing but sin in this flesh. The same thing was true of Christ. He overcame by faith. He had no advantage over us.
There's a statement from the SOP to the effect that had Christ had any advantage over us in our temptations, the adversary would have made capital of that. Something like that. Maybe Phil knows it.
R:
"The offerings brought to the sanctuary were to be without spot or blemish. Had one stain of sin rested upon our Redeemer, his sacrifice would not have secured the salvation of man." {ST, July 15, 1880 par. 12}
Would it be correct to affirm that a selfish nature is not a stain of sin, if David himself said, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalms 51:5)?
T: You're arguing in a circle. Here's Waggoner's understanding of this text.
quote:
A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.
The following statement in the book of Hebrews is very clear on this point:
For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. ["For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." Revised Version.] Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Heb. 2:16-18
Now EGW preached side by side with him (and Jones) and presented the same theology, and defended *their* theology when she was questioned about it.
quote:
Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. (RH 2/18/90)
As I have pointed out several times, the following statement expresses clearly the post-lapsarian idea (that Christ took the nature of fallen Adam)
quote:
It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." (BE 9/3/00)
Note the contrast:
1) Adam -- no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil
2) But Christ
The clear implication is that Christ had corrupt principles and tendencies to evil. There's no other way to understand what she wrote. Obviously these things could not be in His character, or that make Him sinful, and they weren't a part of His character; they were in His flesh.
The following is also clear that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall.
quote:
The Creator and the creature, the nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus,--the Son of God and the Son of man.
R:
"Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he 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, but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing His will."{SR 57.1}
T: Christ accepted our heredity. He inherited no more natural goodness than did Cain. He overcame in our flesh, accepting our heridity.
quote:
"It was in the order of God that Christ should take on the form and nature of fallen man. "(4SG 115).
quote:
"His human nature was created: it did not even possess angelic powers. It was human, identical to our own:”—(3SM 129)
quote:
"The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. . He would take man's fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam ' " (RH 2/24/74).
These are just a couple of quotes. Many more could be given. But the easiest way to see what Ellen White's view was is simply by noting that *every* SDA held the position that Christ took our fallen nature until 1947. That's simple! She had the same theology as every other SDA that wrote on Christology, and she explictily endorsed those who presented that theology, preached it herself, and defended it alongside Jones and Waggoner, with whom she was preaching, and who shared the same views.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14342
06/29/05 05:55 AM
06/29/05 05:55 AM
|
OP
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
Roseangela So do I gather from your posts that you feel that Christ came to earth in a pre-fallen state, the state as Adam had before his fall?
I'd really appreciate a simple yes or no, if you will, please.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
