|
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 (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,493
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14463
07/30/05 09:03 AM
07/30/05 09:03 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
It seems to me she is referring to Christ as "this holy thing" as a human being, not just as a foetus. What is said to be a mystery is that "Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin." But this cannot refer to His life as a baby, because babies are not tempted.
"He could not have been tempted in all points like as man is tempted had there been no possibility of His failing. He was a free agent, placed on probation, as was Adam and as is man. Unless there is a possibility of yielding, temptation is no temptation. Temptation comes and is resisted when man is powerfully influenced to do a wrong action, and knowing that he can do it, resists by faith with a firm hold upon divine power."--Manuscript 29, March 17, 1899, "Sacrificed for Us." {UL 90.5}
Babies don't know anything and babies don't have faith, so babies can't be tempted nor can they resist temptation. Therefore this sentence doesn't apply to Christ's early life at all.
As to Christ's heredity, of course it can't be said it was in every particular like ours, since He didn't have a human father. His incarnation is a mystery, so you can't be dogmatic about it. The Bible says He partook of our flesh and blood, not that He was born with our spiritual deformity; and Ellen White is clear that not for a moment was there in Christ an evil propensity. "Not for a moment" embraces His whole life _ either as a baby, as child, or as an adult; which means clearly that He has never had any propensity to evil - either inherited or cultivated.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14464
07/31/05 01:56 AM
07/31/05 01:56 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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)
There's nothing unclear about this, is there? Christ "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." I don't know how she could have said this any clearer than this.
As to how Christ overcame temptation, the Bible tells us, so there's no mystery about that, is there? Look at Matthew 4.
It seems clear to me that if you read her statement in context (which I provided) that it is referring especially to the early parts of Christ's life. This is what she had been addressing in the quote, and is the part where people like to speculate. It is this part of His life in which there is mystery.
However, if you wish to read the quote as saying that it's a mystery how Christ could overcome tempation as an adult, that still wouldn't affect anything we have been discussing regarding Christ's heredity (although it seems to me not to be in harmony with Scripture, which provides much information as to how Christ overcame). Christ accepted the working of the law heredity, as shown above.
The position of our church had unilataerally been for about a century that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. Ellen White held this position, as well as Haskell, Jone, Prescott, Waggoner, Wilcox, Daniels, Nichols, just to name a few names off the top of our head. Bible Readings for the home held this position. Our Sabbath School Quarterlies held this position. All the published editorials from the Review and Herald held this position, as well as all the published works of the church, until 1947 when some alternate views started to come in.
Shortly after the 1888 GC, when Jones and Waggoner's message was resisted by the leadership, she toured with them, presenting the message they had been preaching with them. There were questions regarding what they had been preaching regarding the human nature of Christ. She wrote:
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. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature. (RH 2/18/90)
She was preaching the same message as Jones and Waggoner, and defended the postlapsarian position, as was as eloquently stating it herself (as quoted above).
Finally regarding the "that Holy thing" quote, it was Luke who wrote that, quoting what the angels had said. As to why they referred to Christ as "that holy thing" it is my opinion that it was because they had known Christ personally, and regarded Him as holy because that's how they knew Him. Since so little was said, I don't know how any point of view regarding this question could be established.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14465
07/31/05 10:22 AM
07/31/05 10:22 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
Let me put it simply. One of the things we inherit from our parents is the carnal mind. Adam was created with a spiritual mind, but we are born with a carnal mind, which is at enmity with God and not subject to His law. Was Jesus born with this carnal mind?
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14466
08/01/05 04:48 AM
08/01/05 04:48 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
What makes you think we are born with a carnal mind? No, Jesus was not born with a carnal mind. He had the mind of Christ. However, His flesh was the same as ours, just as inspiration states.
The mystery of godliness is that the mind of Christ may be manifested in sinful flesh. This is just what Christ did, and what we may do through faith in Him. As He overcame by faith in God, so we may overcome.
This is the message that Jones, Waggoner, White, Prescott, etc., etc. preached.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14467
08/01/05 09:59 AM
08/01/05 09:59 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
"Jesus continued: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' By nature the heart is evil, and 'who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.' Job 14:4. No human invention can find a remedy for the sinning soul. 'The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.' 'Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.' Rom. 8:7; Matt. 15:19. The fountain of the heart must be purified before the streams can become pure. ... The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit." {DA 172.1}
We are not born with a spiritual mind, but with a carnal mind, or carnal heart, which is at enmity with God and is not subject to His law. Christ, however, was not born with a carnal mind:
"Have they the spiritual mind, the mind of Christ, that delights in the law of God?" {ST, November 24, 1887 par. 4}
So you agree that Jesus' heredity was in this aspect different from ours?
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14468
08/01/05 06:36 PM
08/01/05 06:36 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
It seems to me that Christ's heredity was the same as ours: 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. (DA 49)
This does say Christ accepted the results of our heredity, which "results were ... shown in the history of His earthly ancestor." Those results were every kind of sin and vice, correct?
The following seems to me to put things nicely:
quote:
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)
Here's another one from EGW:
quote:
"Many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and therefore we cannot overcome as He overcame. But this is not true; 'for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. . . . For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted.' Christ knows the sinner's trials; He knows his temptations. He took upon Himself our nature. . . . The Christian's . . . strongest temptations will come from within; for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart. The Lord knows our weaknesses. . . . Every struggle against sin, every effort to conform to the law of God, is Christ working through His appointed agencies upon the human heart. Oh, if we could comprehend what Jesus is to us!" (Christ Tempted As We Are, pp. 3, 4, 11; 1894).
quote:
Satan beguiled the holy pair to their own destruction, and introduced an element of character that was antagonistic to God and to their fellow-creatures. Before the entrance of sin, the hearts of God's children had been filled with love toward their Creator, and they were in harmony with his will; but upon yielding to the tempter a warring element began to work in the human agent.{ST, December 12, 1895 par. 7}
In order to overturn this force from within, from which our strongest temptations arise, Christ took our nature. It is only because He overcame that we are able to overcome. We can do nothing which He did not do.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14469
08/02/05 10:14 AM
08/02/05 10:14 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
Then we can't be in agreement, for, as I said, Christ had two natures but He could not be two persons. He couldn't at the same time possess a carnal mind and a spiritual mind. He couldn't at the same time have the law of God in His heart and be disinclined to obey it. These things are mutually exclusive. If such a situation was possible, which it isn't, it would produce a spiritual aberration.
"No man can keep the law of God apart from Christ, and God will not accept his unaided efforts. The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}
Just look at the quote you yourself provided:
"Satan beguiled the holy pair to their own destruction, and introduced an element of character that was antagonistic to God and to their fellow-creatures."
The character of God is expressed in His law. A tendency to sin is a trait of character which is not in conformity with the law of God. A tendency to sin is a trait of character which is in opposition to the divine will. A tendency to sin is a trait of character which is not in harmony with the divine character. Christ has always reflected the character of God perfectly. He had no element in His character which was antagonistic to God. He is the express image of God's person. He could not have tendencies to sin and still reflect the perfection of God's character, for God's character doesn't have and can't have any tendencies to sin.
He did have all the strong passions of human nature which Satan uses to lead us to sin. But this is completely different from saying that He had traits of character not in harmony with the law of God.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14470
08/02/05 01:25 PM
08/02/05 01:25 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I'm having difficulty telling where we are in disagreement. When I'm saying is that Christ accepted the results of the great law of heredity, which results are shown by his ancestors, which includes every sort of vice and sin. Do you agree up to this point?
I'm also saying that Christ took the same flesh we have. There was no difference between His flesh and ours. Do you agree with this?
I'm also saying that Christ did not ask us to do something which He Himself did not do. Do you agree with this?
Let's start with these three questions, then we can go on.
Regarding Christ not being two persons, the way this is treated by inspiration (both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy) is by distinguishing between the mind and the flesh. Christ had the mind of Christ (imagine that!), but He took our flesh. The flesh, however, is not another person (although it may seem to be so at times). The flesh can, and does, tempt us, and it can, and did, tempt Christ as it tempts us. However, it is only when the mind acceeds to the temptations of the flesh that sin comes into the picture. Christ never did this. So while He was tempted in all points as we are (including temptations from within), He never yielded to temptation.
The differences of Christ and us are two-fold:
1)Christ never yielded to temptation.
2)Christ was not only human.
The similarity is also two-fold:
1)Christ accepted the results of the great law of heredity.
2)Christ was tempted in all points as we are.
One last point is that the SDA church had only one view on this question for over 100 years. It is difficult for me to conceive of the situation where Ellen White actually preached with Jones and Waggoner and defended their (i.e. hers and Jones and Waggoner's) views on the subject; sat and listened to W. W. Prescott preach on the subject, and strongly endorsed his view; read the dozens of articles in our papers; sent S. N. Haskel to represent our view, and read his reports about it;listened to E. J. Waggoner argue against the Holy Flesh movement using this view at the G. C. Session; while all the while secretly holding to some other view, without anyone even so much as guessing that this was the case. Just like we can know the Sabbath was not an issue in N.T. times, we can know the humanity of Christ was not an issue for the first 100 years of our church, and in particular during the time when Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott (as well as EGW!) were speaking and writing about it, because nothing was ever mentioned about it (except to those outside our faith, wondering what we believed, in which case it was defeneded and explained).
So if one wants to know what her views were, it is sufficient to read either her or any of the other of dozens of other Adventists who wrote on the subject. Just as there was only one view on the Sabbath, or the state of the dead, there was only one view regarding the human nature of Christ.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14471
08/02/05 06:04 PM
08/02/05 06:04 PM
|
|
|
The "two natures" problem is untangled when we come to realize that humans have a higher spiritual nature and a lower physical nature. Jesus had the same lower physical nature that we have, but His higher spiritual nature never descended into committing sin, as ours has. Ellen White wrote extensively about the two natures. See Kevin Paulson's article, "The Lower and Higher Natures," at http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-lhnature.php3I suppose I also should say here that there's no evidence in Inspiration that we're born with carnal minds. Quite the contrary. The carnal mind is something that's developed later on, as the result of choices made.
|
|
|
Re: Born sinning or born sinners?
#14472
08/02/05 09:07 PM
08/02/05 09:07 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Thanks John for the reference. I was not familiar with that article. It was well written. Here's a statement referred to in the footnotes: quote:
The lessons of Christ upon the occasion of receiving the children, should leave a deeper impression upon our minds. The words of Christ encourage parents to bring their little ones to Jesus. They may be wayward, and possess passions like those of humanity, but this should not deter us from bringing them to Christ. He blessed children that were possessed of passions like his own.(ST 1/9/96)
What you said about the carnal mind is how I see things too.
It's a difficult subject to parse things exactly right on, and I think the author did a good job.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
