|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,211
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
|
|
|
10 registered members (TheophilusOne, daylily, dedication, Daryl, Karen Y, Kevin H, 4 invisible),
2,740
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14343
06/29/05 01:40 PM
06/29/05 01:40 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
Truth is progressive, and God is patient with His people. Only about twenty years after the crucifixion did God correct the wrong notion of the apostles that gentiles weren’t acceptable to God. From 1844 to 1888 the pioneers believed Christ was a created being, and God never commanded Ellen White to correct them. Even though Waggoner in 1888 began to change the course of things, it would be unreasonable to expect him to have a complete understanding of either Christ’s divinity (about which he still held some mistakes) or of Christ’s humanity. But the main thrust of his preaching was correct, and the church needed his message, and Ellen White gladly endorsed it.
As to the sermon you mentioned, the preacher is correct, and emphasizes a biblical truth - that the Word was made flesh, and that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Christ obviously didn’t come in the body of Adam, but He came in our weakened body, which is a result of sin, and in which we sin - although He Himself was without sin.
Now, let’s leave the pioneers aside, and go back to the subject itself.
It’s clear that babies are born sinners, otherwise they wouldn’t need a Saviour. And Ellen White says clearly that Seth ”was born in sin” (SR 57), although she also says clearly that Christ “was born without a taint of sin” (7A BC 462). “He had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14344
06/30/05 02:08 AM
06/30/05 02:08 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Ikan,
I don’t know if I can reply with a simple yes or no. I believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the physical and mental or emotional aspects, but I don’t believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the spiritual aspect. Being born selfish is being born polluted, is being born in sin _ and Christ was without sin.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14345
06/29/05 07:19 PM
06/29/05 07:19 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: Tom, Truth is progressive, and God is patient with His people. Only about twenty years after the crucifixion did God correct the wrong notion of the apostles that gentiles weren’t acceptable to God. From 1844 to 1888 the pioneers believed Christ was a created being, and God never commanded Ellen White to correct them. T: There was confusion on the issue. Ellen White made a clear statement in 1898 I think it was, several in fact, which settled the issue. However, there was no confusion regarding the human nature of Christ. Ellen White always taught that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall, as did all SDA's until 1947. She wrote clearly and extensively on this subject. You'd have to explain to me the logic of God's correcting the views of Ellen White and her colleagues by way of SDA's studying at non-SDA institutions and bringing in new doctrines. That seems to me a strange way for God to work (although God does do things which appear odd to us, but this would be particularly odd) and there's the problem that EGW was so staunchly post-lapsarian (post-fall). This isn't an issue she wrote about in passing, but there are at least more than 400 references in her writings to Christ's taking the nature of Adam after the fall (boy, that's a mouthful -- hence "post-lapsarian", or as the Brazilians say "post" and "pre" -- even easier, I think I'll do that). R: Even though Waggoner in 1888 began to change the course of things, it would be unreasonable to expect him to have a complete understanding of either Christ’s divinity (about which he still held some mistakes) or of Christ’s humanity. T: There's not a soul who's ever lived who had a complete understanding of Christ's divinity or humanity. That doesn't mean that God them light on the subject. God clearly did, and Ellen White just as clearly endorsed that light, as well as preached it side by side with them. She said that letters had been coming to her asking how Christ could be post, because that would make Him a sinner (your position). She explained why Christ had to be pre. This is very clear. 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.
The common non-SDA position was pre (and still is, which is where we got it from), and so it is natural that EGW should be asked how Christ could be post, and equally natural that they should use the same logic you do (He couldn't have been post because then He would have been a sinner). This is the same logic the Holy Flesh people used. But in every case SDA's have explained why this logic is spurious. That was our position for decades, and Ellen White affirmed specifically those who spoke officially for the denomination in dealing with these issues.
R:
But the main thrust of his preaching was correct, and the church needed his message, and Ellen White gladly endorsed it.
"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.
As to the sermon you mentioned, the preacher is correct, and emphasizes a biblical truth - that the Word was made flesh, and that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Christ obviously didn’t come in the body of Adam, but He came in our weakened body, which is a result of sin, and in which we sin - although He Himself was without sin.
T: When W. W. Prescott wrote that Christ's taking our flesh is our salvation, he meant His taking *our* flesh. That is, fallen, sinful flesh, not the flesh of Adam before the fall, but after the fall, flesh which has the same tendencies to sin as ours has. That's what Prescott explicitly said. That was the the topic of his sermon. For example, the paragraph above the one you cited says:
quote:
"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.
Their whole argument (they being Prescott, Jones, Waggoner and White, as well as every other SDA who spoke on the subject) was that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature, the nature of Adam after the fall, in order to reach us where we are and make it possible for us live as Christ lived. Ellen White herself must have expressed this idea dozens of times. If you take away the premise, the whole edifice falls down.
The topic of the sermon that Prescott preached, and which EGW endorsed, was not that Christ became flesh as in some flesh, but that He became flesh such as our flesh is; that is, that He took the nature of Adam after the fall. He said that as clearly as possible:
quote:
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.
To try to make this as if it were simply saying that Christ became a human being is, being generous, feeble.
A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and Ellen G. White each wrote along the same lines, emphasizing that Christ's taking fallen, sinful human nature is indespensible truth. You can't take away the center point of their theology, and say the main thrust was correct. That was the main thrust!
R:
Now, let’s leave the pioneers aside, and go back to the subject itself.
T: This is a bit exasperating. You cannot do that. Ellen White worked side by side with them, preached with them, endorsed their work. Given she said the same thing they did, and endorsed them when they said the same things she did, there's no reason to set them aside. This is the clearest evidence that her teaching was post. If she was pre then you have to assume she was stupid, because
a) She didn't realize what the subject of Prescott's sermon was.
b) She didn't realize what Haskell meant when he said "When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.”
c) She didn't understand the Holy Flesh theory when she wrote " none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric. none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric." The starting premise of the Holy Flesh theory was that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
d) She didn't realize what Waggoner was preaching at the 1901 General Conference session which she attended when he explained how the Holy Flesh doctrine was wrong because it was founded on Christ's having taken human nature.
e) She didn't realize what Waggoner, Jones and herself were preaching when they were preaching side to side in 1890.
R:
It’s clear that babies are born sinners, otherwise they wouldn’t need a Saviour. And Ellen White says clearly that Seth ”was born in sin” (SR 57), although she also says clearly that Christ “was born without a taint of sin” (7A BC 462). “He had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).
T: We're falling into a disappointing pattern her where I respond to your arguments, but you simply ignore mine. The expressions you point out, or similar ones you might point out in the future, are without exception dealing with either Christ's divinity or His sinlessness (i.e. never having sinned). That Christ took our fallen, sinful nature is a repeated emphasis in her writings. For example:
quote:
[Adam] 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)
Adam had not corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But Christ bore the likeness of sinful flesh. Note the "but". Adam: no corrupt principles; no tendencies to evil. But Christ.
This is clear.
quote:
The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man.
This is also clear. The divine nature of God and the human nature of fallen man are united in Christ: "Adam, the transgressor".
In the Desire of Ages we have not simply isolated sentences which can be taken out of context and misunderstood by not understanding how she uses terms like "taint of sin" but whole paragraphs not only explaining that Christ took fallen nature, but why:
quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)
Note the emphasized part. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. What can this refer to but sin? This is the heredity Christ took, so "share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."
I could give many more examples, but this is already very long, so I'll stop here.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14346
07/01/05 02:37 AM
07/01/05 02:37 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
There was no confusion on the issue. The pioneers were clearly anti-trinitarian and arian, and Ellen white never corrected them, although she, of course, knew the truth, and recognized and endorsed it when she saw it in Waggoner’s message in 1888, when his preponderant emphasis was in Christ’s self-existence, embodying “all the fullness of the Godhead”. However, not even Waggoner understood the full truth, for he still held to views such as that Christ was the Son of God “by birth”, and that He “’proceeded forth and came from God’, but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man” (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 9 & 12). Ellen White never pointed out these mistakes directly, but made statements in The Desire of Ages which corrected them, showing that Christ has always existed and His life is underived.
Of course God did not need to correct Ellen White’s views about Christ’s human nature, for He Himself revealed the truth to her.
About the holy flesh movement, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. What its adepts defended was that it was possible to obtain holy flesh in this world, that is, perfection of body, which would lead to an impossibility to sin. But the flesh of all of us, including Jesus, is marked by “physical, mental, and moral degeneracy”.
Now, this is not the first discussion I participate on this subject; I have participated in several other discussions, and in all of them quotes are thrown against each other, and nothing fruitful results of this. So, I will resist the temptation to engage in this type of discussion. To me the core issue involved here is that all of us are born in sin. Ellen White is clear about that and there is no way to get around it. And if Christ was born exactly like us, in sin, this would constitute Him an imperfect offering, disqualifying Him to be our Saviour.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14347
06/30/05 10:24 PM
06/30/05 10:24 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
(Getting this stuff to post is like debugging code. Fortunately I do this for a living, but it would be nice if it said something other than it can't post a message with a parenthesis in a html tab. That's like the web pages which say "Page cannot be displayed." How about something useful, like an error message and a line number? Oh well, enough programming complaining) R: Tom, There was no confusion on the issue. The pioneers were clearly anti-trinitarian and arian, and Ellen white never corrected them, although she, of course, knew the truth, and recognized and endorsed it when she saw it in Waggoner’s message in 1888, when his preponderant emphasis was in Christ’s self-existence, embodying “all the fullness of the Godhead”. T: No confusion on what issue? You're talking about Christ's divinity here, I guess as some sort of analogy. I think you're trying to make the argument that Ellen White held secret truths that only she had and no one else knew about and which she made known as she saw fit(?). And this is what she did regarding Christ's divinity, so it's reasonable to assume she also did this with Christ's humanity(?) Am I getting this? What makes you think "of course Ellen White knew the truth"? There's no evidence whatsoever that she understood the Bible better than any of her collegues. In fact, the evidence was the reverse. She was a prophet, not a Bible scholar. She didn't know Greek or Hebrew or soteriology, eschatology or any of that stuff. She was a humble servant used wonderfully by God, but there's no reason to think she had a clearer or better understanding than others did on topics. I already mentioned that she said Waggoner understood righteousness by faith better than she did. Here's the direct quote: quote:
Sister White told me of her Guide in Europe, who had stretched His hands out, and said, "There are mistakes being made on both sides in this controversy." Then she added that the "Law in Galatians" is not the real issue of the Conference. The real issue is Righteousness by faith! "E.J. Waggoner can teach righteousness by faith more clearly than I can," said Sister White. "Why, Sister White," I said, "do you mean to say that E. J. Waggoner can teach it better than you can, with all your experience?" Sister White replied, "Yes, the Lord has given him special light on that question. I have been wanting to bring it out more clearly, but I could not have brought it out as clearly as he did. But when he brought it out at Minneapolis, I recognized it." (Interview of J. S. Washburn, a delegate to the 1880 GC, 6/4/50)
Now this is not in the least surprising. I think from your comments perhaps you have an odd understanding of the prophetic office.
Regarding Christ's divinity, this was not a clear cut issue. The Seventh-day Adventist church never expressed the idea that Christ was not fully divine. There was no consensus on this point. Waggoner was clear regarding Christ's divinity as early as 1888 as the following makes clear:
quote:
Before passing to some of the practical lessons that are to be learned from these truths, we must dwell for a few moments upon an opinion that is honestly held by many who would not for any consideration willingly dishonour Christ, but who, through that opinion, do actually deny His Divinity. It is the idea that Christ is a created being, who, through the good pleasure of God, was elevated to His present lofty position. No one who holds this view can possibly have any just conception of the exalted position which Christ really occupies. (Christ and His Righteousness)
Well, that's not the best quote, but it's adequate. Waggoner was clear that Christ was divine, the Creator, and explains that we must understand His divinity and creative power to properly understood righteousness by faith. The book "The Everlasting Covenant" explains this well, as well as in other places. I can dig them out if necessary. At any rate the point is that He was clear on the divinity of Christ many years before the statements by EGW in 1898 which finally set the issue to rest.
R: However, not even Waggoner understood the full truth, for he still held to views such as that Christ was the Son of God “by birth”, and that He “’proceeded forth and came from God’, but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man” (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 9 & 12). Ellen White never pointed out these mistakes directly, but made statements in The Desire of Ages which corrected them, showing that Christ has always existed and His life is underived.
T: I don't see how this is relevant, but I should point out that it's not at all clear, at least not to me, that these were errors. Basically Waggoner was just quoting Scripture, which does say that Christ proceeded forth from the Father. This doesn't mean there was a time when Christ did not exist, and Waggoner did not say that. Some have interpreted what he wrote to mean that, but that's just an interpretation. Another interpretation is that when there were no other beings in existence but God, there was no reason for Christ to proceed forth from the Father, but when the Godhead decided to create, then Christ proceeded forth from the Father. Really, this is all speculative, as Waggoner wrote very little about this.
On the other hand, Waggoner wrote scores and scores of pages regarding Christ's having taken our fallen human nature, and there's no doubt as to his position on this, nor is there doubt that Ellen White agreed with it, since she explicitly endorsed and preached it side by side with him, and defended their (i.e. hers and Waggoners) views when quesitoned.
R: Of course God did not need to correct Ellen White’s views about Christ’s human nature, for He Himself revealed the truth to her.
T: This doesn't make sense to me. First of all, before God revealed truth to her, Ellen White had views, her mind not being an empty slate upon which God would write. She had erroneous views on a number of things, and God did reveal these errors to her as needed.
However, regarding the human nature of Christ, she always held that Christ took the nature of man after the fall, which is correct, so there is no error for God to correct.
R: About the holy flesh movement, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. What its adepts defended was that it was possible to obtain holy flesh in this world, that is, perfection of body, which would lead to an impossibility to sin. But the flesh of all of us, including Jesus, is marked by “physical, mental, and moral degeneracy”.
T: Here's a summary of holy flesh ideas:
quote:
Further false doctrines that Haskell and others exposed included: (1) the impartation of the Holy Spirit was primarily for physical manifestations and miracles rather than character preparation for service; (2) perfectionism (understood as “holy flesh”) in the sense of not being able to sin because no temptation now arises from within; (3) Jesus was born with “sinless flesh;” (4) the Holy Spirit insulated Jesus at conception from the law of heredity; (5) sealed people will not die; and (6) sealed people are healed physically as well as spiritually.(http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt18.html#Holy%20Flesh%20Movement)
The foundation is that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall. The argument goes like this:
1) Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
2) We need to be sinless like Christ was.
3) Therefore we need sinless flesh like Christ had.
The way that Haskell met this was to point out that we (SDA's) do not believe that Christ took that nature of Adam before the fall, but after the fall.
quote:
When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.
It seems to me that only looking away from the evidence could lead one to think that this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. S. N. Haskell wrote to Ellen White saying "When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned." which is just what you say. You have pitted yourself against S. N. Haskell and Ellen White and put yourself on the side of the Holy Flesh people, so far as the nature of Christ is concerned. You have taken their position and their argument.
Waggoner also argued against the Holy Flesh ideas, and argued the same way Haskell did, by attacking their idea that Christ did not take the flesh of Adam after the fall. Ellen White witnessed this and coutenanced it. She said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.
It's clear that Haskell and White were united in this.
R: Now, this is not the first discussion I participate on this subject; I have participated in several other discussions, and in all of them quotes are thrown against each other, and nothing fruitful results of this. So, I will resist the temptation to engage in this type of discussion. To me the core issue involved here is that all of us are born in sin. Ellen White is clear about that and there is no way to get around it. And if Christ was born exactly like us, in sin, this would constitute Him an imperfect offering, disqualifying Him to be our Saviour.
T: What you are saying is not SDA theology. Nothing like what you wrote appears *anywhere* in *any* SDA publication until 1947. Ellen White never wrote anything like what you are saying. All you can do is do like the SDA Bible Commentary did and take little bits and snippets out of context. But the evidence is clear:
1) All SDA's, all of them, that wrote about the subject of Christ's humanity presented the position that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall, until 1947.
2) Ellen White specifically endorsed this teaching:
a) She said that letters had come to her, preaching side by side along with Waggoner, regarding Christ's taking fallen human nature. She explained why this view was correct.
b) She endorsed a specific sermon which was specifically about the very subject that Christ took the fallen nature of man in the strongest possible language, a sermon which she heard personally.
c) She worked alongside Haskell and Waggoner, among others, who attacked the Holy Flesh movement by attacking their false views that Christ took that nature of Adam before the fall.
d) She explained her position in paragraphs (not out of context snippest, but long developed reasoning) in the Desire of Ages, her book about Christ's life.
Also, you have not addressed the statements I have quoted repeatedly:
quote:
[Adam] 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)
How can this possibly be interpreted in any other way than that Christ had corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in His flesh? How?
This one too:
quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)
I do agree with you regarding the lack of fruit in discussing this subject. Those whom I have talked with have refused to consider the evidence.
The book "Touched With His Feelings" by Zurcher provides a lot more documentation to the points I have been making.
Just the simple fact that there were no SDA's that held to the position that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall until several generations after Ellen White's lifetime should be proof enough of the right position. This wasn't some obscure topic of which little was said or written, but a subject upon which hundreds of pages were written. It's simply inconceivable that Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott were wrong about this and God continued to send messages of approval saying they were right.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14348
07/01/05 04:57 AM
07/01/05 04:57 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
Rosangela said: I believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the physical and mental or emotional aspects, but I don’t believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the spiritual aspect.
This is true.
Tom, Your use of the term “sinful nature” is without discrimination. Such use will end in quagmire. Your lack of making a distinction between flesh and spirit is unacceptable. Without this distinction there can be no understanding. I contend that usage of “nature” for “flesh” is erroneous for definition; and if one truly understands it for such, then divine nature must mean "divine flesh"; and this is wrong.
The first point is: "hamartias sarx" = sinful flesh, no problem
The next point is: “hamartias phusis” = sinful nature, this derived from opposite meaning of
The reference point: “theios phusis” = divine nature.
Please note that “phusis” is entirely different than “sarx”. Do not interchange them.
‘Sinful flesh’ is easy, simply put, inherited and cultivated tendencies residing in the body. It is our physical condition or circumstance. This part is a non-issue in salvation. This will be dealt with at resurrection or translation. God can zap this physical change without any effort.
‘Sinful nature’ on the other hand, would be the chosen and cultivated tendencies, position, principles, and values residing in the spirit. This is the problem; the disease; the sin master.
The reason why this is more difficult to discern is because in the sinner, the spirit is subject to the flesh (carnal mind), and so the two appear as one. Nevertheless the difference is vital and the division must occur if one will be saved.
‘Sinful nature’ needs to be understood as the opposite of ‘divine nature’ as spoken in 2Pe 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
And in context of Rom 1:3-4
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
What is important here is that difference which is seen in Christ. He inherited our sinful flesh as any of us do, but he did not inherit our sinful nature (spirit), rather he retained his spirit (divine nature), for he was declared to be the son of God according to spirit. It is this that he gives us (divine nature, spirit) so that we may be sons and daughters of God, and live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
It is this that is spoken in Romans 8:3-9
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For, they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
This is what is meant in John 1:12-13
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.
Sinful nature therefore is the state of the ‘spirit of man’, which is subject to the sinful flesh, and minds the flesh. Here spirit is servant to the flesh. It is a conundrum for the sinner, because he thinks he is free, and does what he wants. That is because he wants to do the things of the flesh. However, when he tries not to do something of the flesh; that is when he will discover his slavery. That is what Romans 7 is about.
Divine nature is the Spirit of God in Christ, in which our spirit is to dwell and he in us. Thus our spirit is set free from being subject to the flesh, to live the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Our flesh then takes its proper place of being servant to spirit. Our spirit is united with God’s spirit, and we are a new creature in Christ. Here there is power and victory over every temptation and sin.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14349
07/01/05 05:29 AM
07/01/05 05:29 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Tom, I shall try to convey the issues in language you are acquainted with.
When referring to a “computer”, you cannot call everything regarding a computer as “electronic apparatus” (‘apparatus’ here will stand for ‘flesh’)
You can call a computer as a whole an “electronic apparatus” without a problem, or you can call the hardware such, but when you are referring to software you must change your terminology. So you must make a difference between “hardware” and “software”. So when you speak of the software it is erroneous to use the expression “electronic apparatus” for software. That would be misleading. You could call it “electronic language” or some such thing. Just as you cannot use the term "apparatus" for software; likewise you cannot use the term "language" for hardware.
So while this is very limiting, nevertheless it will serve the purpose.
“Flesh” would answer to “hardware and bios”
“Nature” would answer to “OS and drivers”
Please note, and do not “hang up” on the fact that EW used “sinful nature” once when she actually meant “sinful flesh”. She had no intention to define or confuse the term.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14350
07/02/05 02:53 AM
07/02/05 02:53 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
John, there's no distinction between "sinful flesh" and "sinful nature" is it's traditionally used within SDAism. You're introducing a distinction which most do not have. In fact, you're the first person I've come across to make it. Consider Romans 8:3 quote:
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
quote:
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man.
quote:
For God has done what the Law could not do, [its power] being weakened by the flesh the entire nature of man without the Holy Spirit]. Sending His own Son in the guise of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, [God] condemned sin in the flesh subdued, overcame, deprived it of its power over all who accept that sacrifice]
This is KJV, NIV and Amplified respectively.
Another example, Heb. 2:14:
quote:
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.
quote:
14Since, therefore, [these His] children share in flesh and blood [in the physical nature of human beings], He [Himself] in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by [going through] death He might bring to nought and make of no effect him who had the power of death--that is, the devil--
quote:
2:14Since the children, as he calls them, are people of flesh and blood, Jesus himself became like them and shared their human nature. He did this so that through his death he might destroy the Devil, who has the power over death,
NIV, Amplified, GNB.
This shows that different translators have translated "sarx" as "nature" and some as "flesh".
The Spirit of Prophesy also uses the terms interchangeably. For example:
quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.(DA 49)
Here she speaks of Christ taking the nature of fallen Adam.
quote:
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin that 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. ST 10-17-1900
Here she speaks of Christ taking the sinful flesh of Adam.
quote:
God has given to the world and to angels the evidence of the changeless character of His love. He would part with His only begotten Son, send Him into the world, clothed in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin and to die upon Calvary's cross to make it manifest to men that there is provision in the counsels of heaven for those who believe in Christ, to keep the commandments of God. Aside from Christ, man cannot in spirit and in truth keep one of the commandments of God, but in Christ Jesus the claims of the law are met, because He transforms the nature of man by His grace, creates in the heart a new spiritual life, implants a holy nature, and men become Christlike in character. {14MR 86.1}
Another sinful flesh example.
quote:
The sinful nature of man was weak, and he was prone to the transgression of God's commandments. Man had not the power to do the words of God; that is why Christ came to our world, that He might give him moral power. There was no power in heaven or in earth but the power of Christ that could deliver from the [sentence illegible in original]. He came to meet the difficulty and to remove it. His own arm brought salvation. God sent forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh that He might condemn sin in the flesh and reveal the fact to heaven, to the worlds unfallen and also the fallen world, that through the power of divine grace, through partaking of the divine nature, man need no longer stand under the curse of the law or remain in transgression. {14MR 82.3}
In this statement she uses the terms interchangeably in the same paragraph. The sinful nature of man was weak, so God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Here's a statement from A. T. Jones:
quote:
“And that this is likeness to man as He is in His flesh, sinful nature, and not as He was in His original [heavenly] sinless nature, is made certain by the Word: 'We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death.' Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death; this is what we see Jesus to be, in His place, as man (The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection).
Note the clarification of "flesh" as "sinful nature".
The following is from F. D. Nichols in the book "Answers to Objections"
quote:
'Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach 'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' (sorry for the funny quoting, but that's the way it was from where I grabbed it)
Here's a statement from an SDA who holds the contrary view that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall:
quote:
"Clearly Jesus did not have a sinful nature; He had no sinful passions or any taint of sin. By contrast, all the rest of us are born into the world with these liabilities. On the surface, at least, this looks like a huge advantage for Christ, and calls into question His ability to be our example. " (Jesus Our Example, Norman Gulley)
Note "sinful nature" is being used as something genetic.
I could quote many, many more of these, John. The fact of the matter is that I *am* using the term "sinful nature" in the way it has been traditionally used by SDA's, so I can't see how I could possibly be causing confusion by using the term in the same way it's customarily been used.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14351
07/01/05 06:45 PM
07/01/05 06:45 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Tom, I did not contend that others have used it so. But there has been confusion as a result, and though many words have been used the meaning has remained uncertain. Modern Bible translators, in taking the liberty to interpret these words in such a way are creating further confusion. I understand that AT Jones, Waggoner, EW, and others used these in various ways seeking to express the message. From the context of the message you will see that the definitions I have given are true.
The definitions I am bringing forth are meaningful. It is a simple principle which arises from scriptures use of the word “nature” (phusis), which must not be confused with “flesh“(sarx).
If we are going to have a clear understanding of the problem of sin as well as the solution of salvation then the remedy must correspond to the malady.
In other words “sinful nature” is the problem; “divine nature” is the solution. In both cases “nature” has to mean the same thing. Christ came to save us from “sinful nature”; to do this he gives us “divine nature”. He did not come to save us from “sinful flesh” (for now), but from “sinful nature” by “divine nature”. He came in “sinful flesh” but with “divine nature”. So we must take hold of his “divine nature” so that we may be victorious in “sinful flesh”. So whatever “divine nature” means, “sinful nature” must be the corresponding definition. If we are changing references of definition when switching from one to the other we will not understand what is happening.
I suppose Tom if you are ready to adopt (at least temporarily) my definitions, we are ready to proceed to understand what this “nomenclature” is referring to. It will be so much easier to understand both the problem and the solution.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14352
07/01/05 07:23 PM
07/01/05 07:23 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
John, I'm not comfortable with using "sinful nature" in a different way than "sinful flesh". This is how SDA's have always used it (as well as others), and I've used it that way for many years. If I were to use it in some other way, I would find that most confusing. Perhaps you could suggest some other phrase that conveys the meaning you have in mind.
Words are just a means to an end. I don't think I disagree with your meanings, just your choice of words, (and vice versa -- that is, I don't think you're disagreeing with my meanings, just my words).
So since neither of us likes the use of the phrase "sinful nature" as used by the other, let's avoid it. That's my suggestion. If I use the phrase "fallen nature" is that acceptable as a synonym for "sinful flesh"? I use "sinful nature" to make clear I mean the nature of Adam after the fall, but "fallen nature" makes that clear just as well, so I could use that.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
