|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,195
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
|
|
|
5 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Kevin H, 2 invisible),
2,522
guests, and 8
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16069
10/29/05 05:40 AM
10/29/05 05:40 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:The Baker letter was a personal letter, not a manuscript. It so happens that many, if not most, of the manuscripts are personal letters. "It so happens" to a native speaking American is a sarcastic phrase. I'm hoping you used this phrase ignorant of its negative connotation.
There are different definitions for manuscript. This is the one I had in mind: "the form of a literary work submitted for publication". This is the only definition which makes sense in the context of my statement. You evidently have in mind the following definition: "The original pages of an author's work, written in the author's hand or typed."
However this definition doesn't work in the context of what I stated, which is that she herself couneled that if we want to know what her thoughts are on a subject, we should consult her public works. And this is simply common sense. We have no way of knowing what the context of a private letter is, so it is easy for us to misinterpret a thought or statement. On the other hand, statements intended for public, not private, consumption are written more carefully for a larger audience to understand. Without question, if we wish to understand Ellen White's Christology, the best place to look is The Desire of Ages, a book written for the express purpose of setting forth her thoughts regarding Jesus Christ.Old Tom:Secondly, the statement says "not for one moment" which would refer to something transitory Just the opposite is true. How so? I gave an example of blue eyes. If I say, "not for one moment were my eyes blue" this could only make sense if I'm refering to blue contact lenses, not eyes which are naturally blue. If I were referring to my actually eye colors, I would simply say, "My eyes are not blue." Similarly if Ellen White had in mind something which Christ received by birth when she referred to "evil propensities" she would not have said, "Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity". That just doesn't make any sense.
Here's another example. I wouldn't say, "Not for one moment did I have a cleft chin" because a cleft chin is something received by birth. I could say, "not for one moment did I have buck teeth" however, because buck teeth can be corrected orthodontically. "Not for one moment" qualifies something which is not static in nature. If it's stats, "not for one moment" doesn't make any sense to use.Old Tom:She is contrasting the lack of "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" that Adam did not have with something Christ did have. As I said in the previous time we discussed this passage, the contrast being made is not 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 every sense in disadvantage in relation to him, yet He overcame. I agree with your summary in the last sentence. Christ was in every sense in disadvantage in relation to Adam, including the sense of not having sinless flesh like unfallen Adam, but rather sinful flesh such as we have. Over and over again she makes the point that Christ was an example for us in overcoming temptation. Christ said for us to be of good cheer, because He had overcome the world. The world which Christ overcame was in His flesh. We can be of good cheer because Christ overcame our temptations. "Adam had the advantage over Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing full vigor of body and mind. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation. Every device that the enemy could suggest was brought against Him. It was when Christ was in a weakened condition, after His long fast of forty days, that the wisest of the fallen angels used the most enticing words at his command in an effort to compel the mind of Christ to yield to his mind." {ST, December 3, 1902} About the heredity Christ took, the passage above mentions three things: Physical strength; Mental power; Moral worth – moral worth has to do with character: "It is moral worth that God values. A Christian character unblotted with avarice, possessing quietness, meekness, and humility, is more precious in his sight than the most fine gold, even the golden wedge of Ophir." {ST, March 22, 1883 par. 5} "God did not value the riches of this wealthy man, because he had not true moral worth. His character was worthless." {ST, March 22, 1883 par. 9} "Through the perfection of Christ's character, man was elevated in the scale of moral value with God." {ST, August 7, 1879 par. 8} In the statement she wrote that
quote:
Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.
The "lowest depths of degredation" does not refer to man's getting tired or hungry, but to that which sin has wraught. The "infirmities of degenerate humanity" is the same thing as our sinful nature, or sinful flesh. Only as Christ's flesh is like our could He life us up from the depths.
quote:
"Moreover the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen 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 tendencies of sinful human nature." Christ and His Righteousness, by E. J. Waggoner, 25-27
quote:
"For Him to be separated a single degree, or a shadow of a single degree, in any sense, from the nature of those whom He came to redeem, would be only to miss everything."—The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, A. T Jones, 34
quote:
This ladder represented Christ who had opened the communication between earth and Heaven. In Christ's humiliation he descended to the very depth of human woe in sympathy and pity for fallen man, which was represented to Jacob by one end of the ladder resting upon the earth, while the top of the ladder, reaching unto Heaven, represents the divine power of Christ, who grasps the Infinite, and thus links earth to Heaven, and finite man to the infinite God. Through Christ the communication is opened between God and man. Angels may pass from Heaven to earth with messages of love to fallen man, and to minister unto those who shall be heirs of salvation. (RH 8/17/74)
Ellen White's views were no differnt on this subject than her SDA contemporaries. In the previous post I pointed out how the SDA's in the late 1890's and early 1900's met the Holy Flesh heresy by arguing that Christ took our sinful flesh, not the flesh of unfallen Adam. Ellen White was a party to this.
In 1890 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)
Ellen White was preaching with Jones and Waggoner when she wrote this, and defended the point of view they were together presenting. There is not a scintilla of evidence that her view was in any way different than that of Jones, Waggoner, or Prescott's, whom she endorsed enthusiastically.
It is only in relatively recent times that the view of some in the SDA church started to change. 1947 was the first time, if memory serves, that the prelapsarian view first appeared in an SDA publication. There's simply no logical way (at least none I can see; I'm open to hear attempts) that Ellen White could have held a view contrary to those around her, those whom she preached with, those whom she endorsed, those who methods she approved of, without these differences being known.
When she had a difference on a much smaller matter (whether Christ could have sinned), she made that difference clear to Waggoner (who immediately stopped teaching this -- he had been saying Christ couldn't sin because He had perfect faith, this was in 1888-1889). If she had viewed Waggoner's and Jones' views on the nature of Christ to be wrong, she certainly would have corrected them, and would certainly not have endorsed them on this very point, and would not have endorsed Prescott's sermon on this very subject.
I think I mentioned this earlier, but if not I can flesh out this argument. She wrote that Satan claimed that fallen man could not keep the law of God, and that Christ took our fallen nature in order to prove that Satan's claims were false (reminisent of Romans 8:3,4). If Christ did not take our nature, her whole argument falls to pieces (as does Paul's).
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16070
10/29/05 05:26 PM
10/29/05 05:26 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
"It so happens" to a native speaking American is a sarcastic phrase.
Sorry, what I wished to say was “Acontece que...”
quote:
How so? I gave an example of blue eyes.
Blue eyes do not fit, for they can only be inherited; she had to find an expression which could be applied at the same time to something that can be either inherited or acquired, as is the case of propensities/inclinations/tendencies. You could say, for instance, "not for one moment have I been rich", which means you neither were born rich nor ever became rich. Or you could say, "not for one moment have I had the HIV virus in my body", which means you neither were born with it nor ever acquired it.
quote:
We can be of good cheer because Christ overcame our temptations.
As I pointed out several times, Ellen White doesn’t make any distinction between the temptations of Adam and Eve, the temptations of Christ, and ours.
quote:
The "lowest depths of degredation" does not refer to man's getting tired or hungry, but to that which sin has wraught.
Neither could the “lowest depths of degradation” refer to just tendencies to sin; it certainly means real acts of sin. However, in this passage the expression is applied to man, not to Christ.
quote:
The "infirmities of degenerate humanity" is the same thing as our sinful nature, or sinful flesh.
To me, it means the “effects of sin” (another expression she uses).
"In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity" (DA 117).
“He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but he did not take the taint of sin.”--Ms 93, 1893, p. 3. {17MR 24.2}
Please note the expression: "He did not take the taint of sin".
“There should not be the faintest misgiving in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ.”--Ms 143, 1897, pp. 1, 3. {17MR 26.1}
quote:
She wrote that Satan claimed that fallen man could not keep the law of God, and that Christ took our fallen nature in order to prove that Satan's claims were false (reminisent of Romans 8:3,4). If Christ did not take our nature, her whole argument falls to pieces (as does Paul's).
She did write that Satan claimed that man [irrespective of pre or post fall] could not keep the law of God and that he pointed to Adam’ssin as proof of this. She said that Christ took Adam’s position, that He came to redeem Adam’s failure, that He began where Adam began. If He began where we begin, her whole argument falls to pieces.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16071
10/29/05 05:52 PM
10/29/05 05:52 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Jesus was tempted in the same way born again believers are tempted. Before His incarnation this was not possible. So, what was the difference before and after His incarnation? Why was it possible for Him to be tempted after His incarnation?
In what way are the 144,000 more like Jesus than the rest of us? Are they more perfect, more sinless? If so, how so?
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16072
10/29/05 07:40 PM
10/29/05 07:40 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Sorry, what I wished to say was “Acontece que...” No problem.Old Tom:How so? I gave an example of blue eyes. Blue eyes do not fit, for they can only be inherited; she had to find an expression which could be applied at the same time to something that can be either inherited or acquired, as is the case of propensities/inclinations/tendencies. You could say, for instance, "not for one moment have I been rich", which means you neither were born rich nor ever became rich. Or you could say, "not for one moment have I had the HIV virus in my body", which means you neither were born with it nor ever acquired it. The point I'm making is that it doesn't make any sense to say of Christ, "Not in one moment was there in Him an evil propensity" if this was something which is inherited, just as one would not say, "Not for one moment was I left-handed". The qualification "not for one moment" doesn't make any sense for a static trait (such as anything which would be inherited) but only for something one could have control over, such as committing sin. Hence it is unlikely that Ellen White had in mind the flesh Christ inherited in her expressions in the Baker letter. It's more likely that Ellen White had in mind Christ's not having committed any sin in mind, and also, from the Baker letter, that she had in mind that Christ was not only human, but also divine.
We see this theme in all her writings, that while she was clear that Christ took our flesh and went to the very depths of where we were to rescue us, this did not imply either that Christ was not fully divine, nor that Christ had committed any sin.Old Tom:We can be of good cheer because Christ overcame our temptations. As I pointed out several times, Ellen White doesn’t make any distinction between the temptations of Adam and Eve, the temptations of Christ, and ours. You just pointed out there were differences in your explanation of the Bible Echo quote. You pointed out that Christ had none of the advantages that Adam had. Old Tom:The "lowest depths of degredation" does not refer to man's getting tired or hungry, but to that which sin has wraught. Neither could the “lowest depths of degradation” refer to just tendencies to sin; it certainly means real acts of sin. However, in this passage the expression is applied to man, not to Christ. The passage applies principally to Christ, because it is pointing out that He reached down to where we were. That we are in the lowest depths of degredation is not a revelation. That Christ could get down to our level, to be able to bring us out, is. Bible Readings for the Home puts it this way: quote:
"In His humanity, Christ partook of our sinful fallen nature, If not, then He was not made like unto His brethren; therefore He was not, in all points tempted like as we are, did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not therefore the complete and perfect Saviour man needs, and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate, sinless mother and inherited no tendencies to sin removed Him from the realm of a fallen world and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherited, a sinful nature, On the divine side, from His very conception, He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage ground and to demonstrate that, in the same way, every one who is born of the Spirit may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame (Rev. 3:21). Without this birth, there can be no victory over temptation and no salvation from sin," Bible Readings for the Home 1914-1946
"In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity" (DA 117).
“He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but he did not take the taint of sin.”--Ms 93, 1893, p. 3. {17MR 24.2}
Please note the expression: "He did not take the taint of sin".
The "taint of sin" refers to the committing of sin. In other words, Christ never committed sin. Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature; He was made to be sin for us, but He never sinned. As Waggoner puts it:
quote:
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 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. When He lay in the tomb, under the power of death, "it was impossible that he should be holden of it," because he "knew no sin." (Christ And His Rightouesness)
“There should not be the faintest misgiving in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ.”--Ms 143, 1897, pp. 1, 3. {17MR 26.1}
Just as Waggoner stated, Christ, while taking our sinful flesh, returned to the throne as spotless as He was when He left. "Sinlessness" is something which Ellen White ascribes as possible for us to attain, so it clearly does not refer to our flesh, as we cannot in this life obtain sinless flesh.
quote:
The Saviour is wounded afresh and put to open shame when His people pay no heed to His word. He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in His power His people might also live lives of sinlessness. He desires them by practicing the principles of truth to show to the world that God's grace has power to sanctify the heart. (4/1/02)
Old Tom:She wrote that Satan claimed that fallen man could not keep the law of God, and that Christ took our fallen nature in order to prove that Satan's claims were false (reminisent of Romans 8:3,4). If Christ did not take our nature, her whole argument falls to pieces (as does Paul's).
She did write that Satan claimed that man [irrespective of pre or post fall] could not keep the law of God and that he pointed to Adam’ssin as proof of this. She said that Christ took Adam’s position, that He came to redeem Adam’s failure, that He began where Adam began. If He began where we begin, her whole argument falls to pieces.
He began where Adam began in terms of being sinless, and being tempted (i.e., that He was tempted at all).
quote:
"Satan had pointed to Adam's sin as proof that God's law was unjust, and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.
"Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."—(DA 116-117).
Note:
1)We do not have in any sense a more trying conflict than Christ had.
2)Christ took humanity with all its liabilities.
3)We have nothing to bear which Christ has not endured.
There's only two possibilities here:
a)Christ took our nature, and faced the same problems we have, including genetic tendencies
b)Having a sinful nature does not make our temptations any more difficult than not having a sinful nature.
It determinig Ellen White's views, considering what she wrote theologically is only one thing to consider. Also to be considered are the following:
1)She endorsed the teachings of those who taught that Christ took our sinful nature.
2)She preached with those who taught that Christ took our sinful nature.
3)She defended the position of herself and those who were preaching that Christ took fallen nature
4)She approved of using the teaching that Christ took fallen nature to counteract the teaching of the Holy Flesh heresy.
5)All her SDA colleagues believed as she did. It was only to those outside the SDA church that efforts were made to convince them that Christ took fallen nature.
6)Not until 1947 was the idea that Christ did not take sinful nature printed in the SDA church.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16073
10/30/05 10:51 AM
10/30/05 10:51 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
“He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but he did not take the taint of sin.”--Ms 93, 1893, p. 3. {17MR 24.2}
T: The "taint of sin" refers to the committing of sin. In other words, Christ never committed sin.
So the text means that Christ took the nature of man but did not take the committing of sin? A very strange way of saying things, not to mention that it would be a foolish statement. How could a Savior “take” the committing of sin?
Other texts also express the same idea:
“He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man” (ST May 29, 1901).
Please notice that the text says that the sinfulness of man was something He didn’t take, not something He didn’t develop.
quote:
There's only two possibilities here:
a)Christ took our nature, and faced the same problems we have, including genetic tendencies
b)Having a sinful nature does not make our temptations any more difficult than not having a sinful nature.
Yes, I think you will stay with the first option and I will stay with the second.
The essence of temptation is the same, the intensity of temptation may vary. Of course things were much easier for Adam because God did not permit Satan to attack him with the fury he attacked Christ.
“For forty days and forty nights He fasted; then, when He hungered, Satan came to Him as though a messenger from the heavenly courts, and tempted Him. In this contest Christ was at a disadvantage, for His strength was reduced by His long fast. The plan of salvation was so arranged that when Adam was tested, temptation was removed from him as far as possible. When Adam was tempted, he was not hungry. He had the opportunity of satisfying every need. But when Christ was tempted, He was faint from want of food. He was to qualify Himself for the office of Redeemer by successfully resisting every assault of the enemy. His power of resistance was to be an example for all who would hereafter be placed in trying positions.” {ST, April 4, 1900 par. 4}
"With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us." (DA 116, 117)
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16074
10/30/05 12:32 PM
10/30/05 12:32 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
There's only two possibilities here:
a)Christ took our nature, and faced the same problems we have, including genetic tendencies
b)Having a sinful nature does not make our temptations any more difficult than not having a sinful nature.
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Both are correct - rightly understood.
Unless we understand the division between the flesh and the spirit, we will never understand it.
a)Christ took our nature (sinful flesh), and faced the same problems we have, including genetic tendencies – according to the flesh.
Christ did not take our sinful nature (sinful spirit) but rather retained his holy spirit.
b) Having sinful flesh does not make our temptations any more difficult than not having sinful flesh. Having a sinful spirit makes us slaves to temptation and sinners. For this cause Christ came in sinful flesh but with a holy spirit, to concdemn sin in the flesh.
To all who are willing to receive, he gives us his holy spirit so that we likewise may live as he lived/lives. In this sinful flesh by his holy spirit it is no more difficult to live victoriously than not having sinful flesh.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16075
10/30/05 02:56 PM
10/30/05 02:56 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Rosangela, in what way was the mind of Jesus different before and during His incarnation?
John, your thoughts on having the spirit of God and having sinful flesh nature sound idylic. But reality reminds me of something quite different, and I haven't even sweated blood resisting the sins of the flesh - yet.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16076
10/30/05 04:44 PM
10/30/05 04:44 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
John, your thoughts on having the spirit of God and having sinful flesh nature sound idylic. But reality reminds me of something quite different, and I haven't even sweated blood resisting the sins of the flesh - yet.
Christ did not for one moment sweat blood resisting the sins of the flesh. He sweated blood resisting the horror of that great darkness; spiritual wickedness in high places; sinful spirit of Satan which was pressed upon him and surrounded him that hour.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16077
10/30/05 04:55 PM
10/30/05 04:55 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Whether my thoughts are idyllic or not, should be reflected by the fact that there are many angelic beings that sinned, and far worse (if that can be said) than most men, and they did not have to contend with any sinful flesh. Satan himself doesn’t even have anyone to blame that someone could have suggested temptation to him, much less that he had sinful flesh. The other fact is that Christ lived/lives victoriously regardless of circumstances (nature) of his body.
Living victoriously has to do with spirit and not with body.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16078
10/31/05 01:33 AM
10/31/05 01:33 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
“He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but he did not take the taint of sin.”--Ms 93, 1893, p. 3. {17MR 24.2} T: The "taint of sin" refers to the committing of sin. In other words, Christ never committed sin. So the text means that Christ took the nature of man but did not take the committing of sin? It means He took our sinful nature, but never committed sin in that nature.A very strange way of saying things, not to mention that it would be a foolish statement. How could a Savior “take” the committing of sin? Other texts also express the same idea: “He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man” (ST May 29, 1901). Please notice that the text says that the sinfulness of man was something He didn’t take, not something He didn’t develop. She's just making the same point. She wants to be clear that in taking our nature Christ did not participate in sin. She's following the same advice she gave to Baker. She's trying to be clear. It's the same thing Waggoner did when he wrote:
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. When He lay in the tomb, under the power of death, "it was impossible that he should be holden of it," because he "knew no sin." (Christ and His righteousness)
The word "taint" means "stain". It is sin that stains or taints, not nature (hence "taint of sin" ). Our sinful nature does not taint, or else Christ could not have taken it, correct?
quote:
Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature . Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity, He sought to regain for man that which, by disobedience, Adam had lost for himself and for the world. In His own character He displayed to the world the character of God. (RH 12/15/96)
Here's some quotes relating to "taint":
quote:
Sin is corrupting in its nature. One man infected with its deadly leprosy may communicate the taint to thousands. Those who occupy responsible positions as guardians of the people are false to their trust if they do not faithfully search out and reprove sin. (CC 120)
quote:
"Learn of me," is the Saviour's command. Yes, learn of Him how to live the Christ life--a life pure and holy, free from any taint of sin. (IHP 183)
quote:
Every soul is surrounded with an atmosphere of its own,--an atmosphere, it may be, charged with the life-giving power of faith, courage, and hope, and sweet with the fragrance of love. Or it may be heavy and chill with the gloom of discontent and selfishness, or poisonous with the deadly taint of cherished sin. (ST 7/2/02)
Ellen White never speaks of nature tainting, only sin. Christ took our sinful nature, but He received no taint because He never sinned.
Regarding "sinlessness":
quote:
Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. (Maranatha 224)
quote:
His life of sinlessness, lived on this earth in human nature, is a complete refutation of Satan's charge against the character of God. (BTS 10/1/02)
quote:
The penalty of our transgression fell upon a pure, holy, innocent Substitute, even the Son of God. He bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we might at last stand before God clothed in the robe of sinlessness.(ST 7/17/03)
Ellen White uses "sinlessness" to mean not committing sin. Christ took our sinful nature, but did not commit sin in that nature. Her teaching was consistent on this point, and no different than Prescott, Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, Wilcox, Underwood, Farnsworth, Glenn, Evans, Covert, Durland, Tenney, Fifield and others, all writing on this subject before 1898, in our publications, all known by Ellen White.
Old Tom:There's only two possibilities here:
a)Christ took our nature, and faced the same problems we have, including genetic tendencies
b)Having a sinful nature does not make our temptations any more difficult than not having a sinful nature.
Yes, I think you will stay with the first option and I will stay with the second.
The essence of temptation is the same, the intensity of temptation may vary.
An important difference is that we, with sinful natures, could not overcome temptation had not Christ taken our sinful nature. Adam, with his sinless nature, could have overcome temptation without Christ taking his sinless nature. This is a big difference!
quote:
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh"--it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law--"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." Romans 5:1, 3:31, 8:3, 4. (PP 373)
In our sinful nature, we could not keep the law. So Christ took our sinful nature, in order that the law might be fulfilled in us. This is the logic of Paul, and this logic is restated by Ellen White.
Of course things were much easier for Adam because God did not permit Satan to attack him with the fury he attacked Christ.
“For forty days and forty nights He fasted; then, when He hungered, Satan came to Him as though a messenger from the heavenly courts, and tempted Him. In this contest Christ was at a disadvantage, for His strength was reduced by His long fast. The plan of salvation was so arranged that when Adam was tested, temptation was removed from him as far as possible. When Adam was tempted, he was not hungry. He had the opportunity of satisfying every need. But when Christ was tempted, He was faint from want of food. He was to qualify Himself for the office of Redeemer by successfully resisting every assault of the enemy. His power of resistance was to be an example for all who would hereafter be placed in trying positions.” {ST, April 4, 1900 par. 4}
"With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us." (DA 116, 117)
In discussing this issue, dealing with Ellen White's theology and use of terms is only one part of the puzzle. She did not exist in a vacuum. She worked with others, and shared their views.
1)She endorsed the teachings of those who taught that Christ took our sinful nature.
2)She preached with those who taught that Christ took our sinful nature.
3)She defended the position of herself and those who were preaching that Christ took fallen nature
4)She approved of using the teaching that Christ took fallen nature to counteract the teaching of the Holy Flesh heresy.
5)All her SDA colleagues believed as she did. It was only to those outside the SDA church that efforts were made to convince them that Christ took fallen nature.
6)Not until 1947 was the idea that Christ did not take sinful nature printed in the SDA church.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
