Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
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
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,503
guests, and 5
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14433
07/26/05 03:27 PM
07/26/05 03:27 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Rosangela, I think it is important to remember that Jesus was born, as it were, born again. He did not begin His life as a human like we do. He began His life as a human like a born again believer. Therefore, the following quote applies to Jesus, and the ones you posted do not apply to Jesus (and, by the way, they do not apply to born again believers while they are actively partaking of the divine nature):
COL 98, 99 The natural inclinations are softened and subdued. New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. A new standard of character is set up--the life of Christ. The mind is changed; the faculties are roused to action in new lines. Man is not endowed with new faculties, but the faculties he has are sanctified. The conscience is awakened. We are endowed with traits of character that enable us to do service for God. {COL 98.3}
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14434
07/26/05 04:30 PM
07/26/05 04:30 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: I've heard others express the same thoughts you have, but it doesn't really make sense to me. What makes more sense to me is that Christ was not *only* human; He was God in human flesh. This is what I see the principle difference being (and that He never chose to sin).
However, this is certainly a difficult subject to ponder. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us that how Christ remained sinless as a young child is a mystery unexplained to mortals, so I'm very reticent to be very adamant on this point. I'm just stating what makes sense to me.
We do have much revelation regarding the reality of Christ's identification with us, so that is something we state positively without doubt.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14435
07/26/05 05:27 PM
07/26/05 05:27 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
There is an either/or relationship in the quotations I mentioned: either one is born with an evil heart or with a good heart; it can’t be both. Either one is born alienated from God or in allegiance to Him; it can’t be both! Either one is born loving God or loving Satan; it can’t be both. Either one is born selfish or unselfish; it can’t be both! Either one is born inclined or disinclined to truth and virtue; it can’t be both. Holding that someone can be born both ways is creating a spiritual aberration. What you are trying to do is to split Christ into two. He had two natures but He was not two persons.
Saying that the quotation you mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that there was indwelling sin in Christ, that is, there was sin dwelling or residing within Christ. Indwelling sin is sin. In order to save us, Christ must be without sin in His humanity, not in His divinity. Besides, Ellen White says,
"There should not be the faintest misgivings in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ." {16MR 117.1}
Besides that, saying that the quotation mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that Christ was not pure and upright, that Christ was not in the image of God, that Christ was not faultless, and that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ. Again, it is not possible to split Christ into two, and saying that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ, but at the same time there weren’t corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ. This simply does not make sense.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14436
07/26/05 05:54 PM
07/26/05 05:54 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Mike,
What you say about Christ being born born again may make sense, and I will study this in further detail.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14437
07/26/05 06:21 PM
07/26/05 06:21 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: Saying that the quotation you mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that there was indwelling sin in Christ, that is, there was sin dwelling or residing within Christ. Tom: What you are saying is not what I wrote. Here's what I wrote: quote: Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. 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." In the wilderness, weakened physically by a fast of forty days, He met the adversary. His dignity was questioned, His authority disputed, His allegiance to His Father assailed by the fallen foe. {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}
Note the contrast between Adam and Christ. Adam had "no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil." BUT when Christ came, etc. So there is a clear contrast between Adam and Christ which involves "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil."
Now we cannot say of Christ Himself that He had "corrupt principles" or "tendencies to evil". Yet a contrast is being made, which clearly includes these things. To what does this apply? Evidently to Christ's flesh, which EGW makes clear in stating that Christ bore the "likeness of sinful flesh." So the conclusion is that the "likeness of sinful flesh" which Christ bore had the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" which Adam did not have.
I didn't say there was a contrast between Christ is "every particular". I said the opposite. I said there was a contrast in regards to something, that "something" being Christ's flesh. What else could it be?
R: Indwelling sin is sin. In order to save us, Christ must be without sin in His humanity, not in His divinity.
Tom: Christ had to be made sin in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Christ was sinless in that He committed no sin. His flesh was no different than ours. He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. That's what the Spirit of Prophesy says. You are correct that on this earth He was one person, but He had two natures, His own divine nature, which was sinless, and the human nature He took, which was our human nature, or to use language John B. prefers, Christ partook of the same flesh we have.
R: Saying that the quotation mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that Christ was not pure and upright, that Christ was not in the image of God, that Christ was not faultless, and that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ.
Tom: Where did I say the quotation establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ "in every particular"? My point was it established a contrast in some particular. She's obviously making a contrast. What is the contrast? It's regarding Christ's flesh. The quote is above. You can verify that. There's nothing else it could be.
R: Again, it is not possible to split Christ into two, and saying that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ, but at the same time there weren’t corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ. This simply does not make sense.
Tom: I never said anything like that. I invite you to reread my post. What I said was that the quotation makes a contrast between Adam and Christ regarding "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil". This is the part right here which makes the contrast:
"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."
My point is that the contrast can only be in reference to Adam's flesh and Christ's flesh. What else could it be? There's some contrast being made. What is it? I say it's clearly contrasting Adam and Christ in relation to their flesh. It cannot be in relation to character, because Christ was sinless.
You wrote before that you agreed that Christ had the same biological constitution that we have. I agree with that. This biological constitution includes the same things ours does, because it is the same as ours.
Waggoner puts it as clearly as I think it can be put here (especially the last paragraph touches upon what we have been discussing):
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 behooved 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 succor them that are tempted. Heb. 2:16-18
If He was made in all things like unto His brethren, then He must have suffered all the infirmities and been subject to all the temptations of His brethren. Two more texts that put this matter very forcibly will be sufficient evidence on this point. We first quote 2 Cor. 5:21:
For He [God] hath made Him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.
This is much stronger than the statement that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is the same mystery as that the son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness. So Paul says to the Galatians that "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4,5.
In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." "For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Heb. 2:18; 4:15, 16.
One more point and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." How was it that Christ could be thus "compassed with infirmity" (Heb. 5:2) and still know no sin? Some may have thought, while reading thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus by bringing Him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the "Divine power" of our blessed Saviour, who Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man in order that He might exalt man to His own spotless purity, which He retained under the most adverse circumstances. His humanity only veiled His Divine nature, by which He was inseparably connected with the invisible God and which was more than able successfully to resist the weaknesses of the flesh. 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 harbored 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, the chapter "God manifest in the flesh")
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14438
07/26/05 07:17 PM
07/26/05 07:17 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom, I'm not understanding what you mean. In your previous post you said, quote: So the conclusion is that the "likeness of sinful flesh" which Christ bore had the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" which Adam did not have.
Saying that there were "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" in Christ's flesh is the same as saying that there were "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" in Christ. Not to mention that "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" involve the mind, not just the body.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14439
07/26/05 08:24 PM
07/26/05 08:24 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Here's the quote: quote: Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. 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." In the wilderness, weakened physically by a fast of forty days, He met the adversary. His dignity was questioned, His authority disputed, His allegiance to His Father assailed by the fallen foe. {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}
Here's what I wrote:
Note the contrast between Adam and Christ. Adam had "no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil." BUT when Christ came, etc. So there is a clear contrast between Adam and Christ which involves "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil."
Now we cannot say of Christ Himself that He had "corrupt principles" or "tendencies to evil". Yet a contrast is being made, which clearly includes these things. To what does this apply? Evidently to Christ's flesh, which EGW makes clear in stating that Christ bore the "likeness of sinful flesh." So the conclusion is that the "likeness of sinful flesh" which Christ bore had the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" which Adam did not have. ----------------------------------------------
This looks sound to me.
What do you think the quote means? In what way do you think Chris had "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" other than in the flesh He bore? I can't see any other possible explanation. Perhaps you could suggest one.
Here's the key part: "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.'"
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14440
07/27/05 10:42 AM
07/27/05 10:42 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
I suggest that the contrast being made is not at all between the words "corrupt principles"/"tendencies to evil" and Christ's "likeness of sinful flesh". The contrast involves everything that is being said about Adam - he had no justifiable reason to fall, yet he fell; but Christ was in disadvantage in relation to him, with a degraded body and after a fast of 40 days, yet He overcame.
A parallel passages help us understand the passage you quoted:
"In what consisted the strength of the assault made upon Adam, which caused his fall? It was not his indwelling sin; for God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. There were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, no corrupt propensities of tendencies to evil. Adam was as faultless as the angels before God's throne. These things are inexplainable, but many things which now we cannot understand will be made plain when we shall see as we are seen, and know as we are known. What humiliation our Lord was subjected to when assailed by the powers of the prince of darkness. Was it no degradation to the spotless Son of God that His dignity should be questioned, His authority disputed, and His allegiance to His heavenly Father assailed by a fallen foe? How humiliating to Christ to have Satan show a superiority to Him. We but dimly comprehend why Christ was brought in contact with the adversary of God and man. It was in behalf of fallen humanity that the compassionate Christ was made to appear in His humiliation. ... Christ gave evidence that all Satan's taunts could not call Him from His allegiance to His Father. The very purity of His principles was assailed, but He gave evidence of the mighty power that was in Him." {16MR 86, 87}
The contrast seems to be that Adam's dignity wasn't assailed, while Christ's was. Yet Adam fell but Christ didn't. One thing is sure: "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" refer to character. Notice what is said about Christ: "The very purity of His principles was assailed, but He gave evidence of the mighty power that was in Him." [ July 27, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14441
07/27/05 12:15 PM
07/27/05 12:15 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote: You can't say He had our biological constitution but deny He had the things that that constituion has (which is sin in its tendency).
Tom,
Returning to this statement of yours, I would like you to examine the following quotations:
"There is a great work to be done for many of us. Our minds and characters must become as the mind and character of Christ. Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance, and has been cherished by many as a precious treasure." {HS 138.7}
"Fathers and mothers may study their own character in their children. They may often read humiliating lessons as they see their own imperfections reproduced in their sons and daughters. While seeking to repress and correct in their children hereditary tendencies to evil, parents should call to their aid double patience, perseverance, and love. ... Manifest the meekness and gentleness of Christ in dealing with the wayward little ones. Always bear in mind that they have received their perversity as an inheritance from the father or mother. Then bear with the children who have inherited your own trait of character. Parents must trust implicitly in the power of Christ to transform the tendencies to wrong which have been transmitted to their children." {AH 173, 174}
"They have inherited the defective characters of their parents, and the discipline of the home has been no help in the formation of right character.--CT 192 (1913)." {2MCP 550.1}
So yes, children inherit their sinful traits of character from their parents, but Christ was not a common Child. His Father was God, and it was from Him that Christ inherited His character.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14442
07/27/05 03:21 PM
07/27/05 03:21 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Character is not inherited, it is developed. Christ was not only human, but divine as well. His inheritance was identical to ours as far as His humanity was concerned, as several SOP statements bring out, including the following: 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.(DA 49)
So my understanding is that Christ was physically or genetically or biologically, however you want to put it, like us. He accepted the results of the working of the great law of herdity, including the results shown by His earthly ancestors, which were, of course, every sort of sin and vice imaginable. These were the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" refered to in the quote I mentioned previously, as I see things.
Now it is important to bear in mind that it *is* possible (necessary in fact, if we want to correctly understand things) to separate the flesh from the mind, or the will. The SOP tells us that the flesh of itself cannot sin. There must be the consent of the mind before sin takes place. On this point Christ was different than every other person who has ever lived. His mind never consented. He never sinned by thought, word or deed, even though He had to meet the same temptations we meet, including the temptations of the flesh. And of course another way He was different than every other human being is that He was not *only* human. He was by nature not human, but divine (and sinless).
I hope this is clear and makes sense. If some point is unclear, or you disagree on some point, I'll await your comments.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|