Tom,

What I was trying to emphasize is that Christ was not born selfish like every other baby. Selfishness is sin, and babies are born in sin, they are born loving sin, and that’s why they must be born again, as Mike pointed out. Christ was born hating sin, with a God-centered nature.
What does it mean that He was born without the propensities to sin, or propensities of disobedience? Since we are born loving sin, it’s natural for us to choose sin. Christ, on the other hand, recoiled from sin.
If Christ had been born without the natural passions and appetites of the human nature, He wouldn’t have been human. Adam was created with these passions. The difference between Adam and Christ is that these passions and appetites had been greatly increased after 4000 years of condescension, so it was much more difficult for Christ to keep them under subjection than for Adam.
If that’s what you believe, then we are in agreement.

I read some of this thread. Interesting. I think we can be confident and assertive on some aspects of the topic, but there is a limit to our level of precision when it comes to analysing the human nature of Christ. For me the bottom line is Christ experienced temptation and overcame in the same way that I have to.

Ellen White herself warns us to avoid the temptation to analyse the personality of Christ and I think an important component of that warning relates to attempting to define his divine and human natures too precisely.

Before responding to Rosangela, I'd like to point out my agreement with Mark. It makes me a bit uneasy to see people trying to define to carefully ideas regarding infants, and Christ's infancy/young childhood. The SOP tells us it is a mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ was able to overcome sin as a young child. So something doesn't seem right to me whenever someone tries to explain this, since I wonder how so-and-so can know what happened if it's a mystery unexplained to mortals.

OTOH that which has been revealed to us is for us and our children, and the SOP has told us that the human nature of Christ is a subject of crucial importance to us and one which we should study. It is a subject that requires great precision with our language, which is something I've found to be in general quite lacking (I'm not talking about on this site, but overall). Ellen White was very careful in the terms she used, and set a good example.

R: What I was trying to emphasize is that Christ was not born selfish like every other baby.

T: Christ was God, and so was on this basis different than every other baby. If by "selfish" you mean having only a human nature, then I agree. If you mean that Christ was biologically different then men (i.e. He had holy flesh, could not be tempted from within, could not be tempted on the point of appetite) then we disagree.

R: Selfishness is sin, and babies are born in sin, they are born loving sin, and that’s why they must be born again, as Mike pointed out. Christ was born hating sin, with a God-centered nature.

T: Once again, Christ was God, perfectly holy, as God is holy. However, his humanity was biologically like that of any other human. He accepted the law of heredity

R: What does it mean that He was born without the propensities to sin, or propensities of disobedience?

T: It means:
a) Christ was God.
b) Christ never sinned.

If you look at the Baker letter, and check how Ellen White uses the terms (that is, look at the context) you will see that she uses them, as well as other terms, to make clear that Christ was God and that He never sinned. "He could have sinned, He could have fallen; but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity" (this is from memory; I'm sure the idea's right) is a clear reference to His human activity, not His genetics.

Ellen White was a clear as can be that Christ accepted the law of hererity, and took our humanity such as it was after 4,000 years of sin. I think we're in agreement on this point, especially if you believe Christ could be tempted from within, as we are, on the point of appetite.

R:Since we are born loving sin, it’s natural for us to choose sin. Christ, on the other hand, recoiled from sin.

T: If you're talking about Christ's own divine nature, that's true. If you're talking about the human nature which Christ assumed, it's not. Christ had to deny His self, just as every human must. There's no difference here. He had to fight the same battle against self that every human being must fight. If He didn't, then His victory really doesn't concern us. That He did overcome self is made clear both in Scripture and in the Spirit of Prophesy. Considering just Scripture we have Rom. 15:3 saying that Christ "pleased not Himself"; John 5:30 "I seek not My own will, but the will of the Father"; In Gethsemanee where He cried out "Not my will, but thine be done".

As Waggoner puts it:

quote:

---

There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harboured an evil desire nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory. (Christ and His Righteousness) http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/chr/chr06.htm

---

Christ's humanity was different than ours in terms of performance, but not in terms of equipment. He was biologically the same as us; no special DNA. But where we have all followed to perfectly deny self, Christ did deny self, even to the death of the cross.

R: If Christ had been born without the natural passions and appetites of the human nature, He wouldn’t have been human. Adam was created with these passions. The difference between Adam and Christ is that these passions and appetites had been greatly increased after 4000 years of condescension, so it was much more difficult for Christ to keep them under subjection than for Adam.
If that’s what you believe, then we are in agreement.

T: Was Christ biologically like other fallen human beings? Or was there some special exemption made for Christ's DNA, so that He did not have to deny self as we must? Could He be tempted like we are? (which is from within, as well as from without) Or only as Adam was tempted before he fell? (from without)

You wrote earlier, if I understood it correctly, that you believe that Christ was tempted from within as we are, and tempted on the point of appetite. If this is what you believe, then you're position is post-lapsarian. We might have some disagreements on minor points or difficulties related to syntax/language/choice of words, but these are minor points IMO.

Something that causes me pause on this is your use of the phrase "natural appetites", as this does nt accurately describe the appetites which are passed genetically. *All* appetites are passed through the genetic code, and Christ obtained the victory of all appetite, not just "natural" appetite. If He didn't, then we are lost.

Note the following quote from the Desire of Ages:

quote:

---

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 48.5}

---

Note the bold part. This cannot be a reference to "natural appetite."

Of course I agree with Rosangela that infants are instinctively selfish and must necessarily be born again later on in life. But Jesus was different in that He existed before He became a human being. He chose, before His incarnation, to be born like a born again believer. He set aside His own divinty and partook of the divine nature in the same way all born again believers may and must. Thus, being God, as well as human, did not give Jesus an advantage not available to born again believers.

We also existed before we were born again, therefore, like Jesus, we too can choose to be born born again. We begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth. That is, we can choose to partake of the divine nature because we have been born again, because we are no longer the slave of sin, self, or Satan, because we have escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Like Jesus, we must stay connected to God, via the divine nature, in order to resist the unholy clamorings of our fallen flesh nature.

Was Christ's humanity (biologically) the same as ours?

Here is a quote that relates to Tom's question as well as to the call of Ellen White for precision in dealing with the subject and her warning of the mystery surrounding the humanity of Christ.

quote:

---

Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. . . .

Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129. {7ABC 448.2}

---

Yes, Jesus was biologically the same as us. The only thing different about Jesus was He never sinned, never even wanted to sin. Yes, why He didn't sin automatically, before He reached the age of reason and accountability, is a mystery that God hasn't explained, yet. This insight, though, implies that Jesus' human nature was identical to ours. Otherwise, if His human nature was unlike ours, in any way, it wouldn't be a mystery. Right?

We're told in the Spirit of Prophesy that Christ's human nature was identical to our own, and the Scriptures say that as well. Christ faught the battle to overcome as we must fight it is a theme repeated many times in inspiration.

1- What is a temptation from within?

2-

quote:

---

The SOP tells us it is a mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ was able to overcome sin as a young child.

---

The SOP itself gives us a hint about it:

"No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by his companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and he refused decidedly. In a moment he distinguished between right and wrong, and placed sin in the light of God's commands, holding up the law as a mirror which reflected light upon wrong. It was this keen discrimination between right and wrong that often provoked Christ's brothers to anger. Yet his appeals and entreaties, and the sorrow expressed in his countenance, revealed such a tender, earnest love for them that they were ashamed of having tempted him to deviate from his strict sense of justice and loyalty." {YI, September 8, 1898 par. 10}

A temptation from within is one which arises apart from an external influence.