|
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 (dedication, TheophilusOne, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, Kevin H, 4 invisible),
2,718
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48215
03/22/06 04:16 PM
03/22/06 04:16 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,636
California, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
quote:
Did Christ have the same mind as fallen, sinful, carnal man? Not even A.T. Jones accepted that.
I'm curious, what's the "not even" there for?
I find that Jones was one of the most emphatic in stating Jesus' likeness to us. If I recall correctly, he went so far as to say that there was not a "particle of difference" between us and Christ. There is only one prominent person I know of who might possibly state the matter more strongly.
But when pressed, Jones said that Christ's mind was not the same as we have. So, even with his emphasis on Christ's identity with fallen man, he stopped short of equating our mind with Christ's mind.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48216
03/22/06 05:01 PM
03/22/06 05:01 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
I find that Jones was one of the most emphatic in stating Jesus' likeness to us. If I recall correctly, he went so far as to say that there was not a "particle of difference" between us and Christ. There is only one prominent person I know of who might possibly state the matter more strongly.
But when pressed, Jones said that Christ's mind was not the same as we have. So, even with his emphasis on Christ's identity with fallen man, he stopped short of equating our mind with Christ's mind.
No, Jones didn't write there "isn't a particle of difference" between us and Christ. Jesus was sinless. He was God in human flesh. To say such a thing would be absurd. Jones never said anything like this.
Here you write "but when pressed." This is as unadvised as saying "not even." "When pressed" makes it sound like Jones was under some sort of duress, as if he were forced to say something he didn't want to.
All Jones did was share the truth about Christ to us. There was no duress involved.
Of course Christ's mind was different than ours. That's why Paul says, "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus." If we already had His mind, Paul wouldn't need to say that. Jones said things like "Don't drag His mind into this. It doesn't say in the likeness of sinful mind, but in the likeness of sinful flesh."
Jones and Waggoner (and Prescott) were always clear about the differences between the mind and the flesh.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48217
03/22/06 07:39 PM
03/22/06 07:39 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,636
California, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
No, Jones didn't write there "isn't a particle of difference" between us and Christ. Jesus was sinless. He was God in human flesh. To say such a thing would be absurd. Jones never said anything like this.
Here's what he said.
quote:
Then in His human nature there is not a particle of difference between Him and you. - A.T. Jones, 1895 GC Sermon #13
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Here you write "but when pressed." This is as unadvised as saying "not even." "When pressed" makes it sound like Jones was under some sort of duress, as if he were forced to say something he didn't want to.
All Jones did was share the truth about Christ to us. There was no duress involved.
I don't know what kind of duress Jones was under, if any. I don't know what he did or did not feel like saying. I just have his statements. As I am neither Jones' apologist nor detractor, and I have no vested interest in his correctness on Christ's nature, I can go either way.
What I do know is that he made the statement above, then a few sermons later, made the statement below. A book I read said that between the two statements, some delegates brought to his attention what the SOP says regarding Christ's not having "like passions" with us. What he felt about it is of minor importance to me compared to what he said.
quote:
Now as to Christ's not having "like passions" with us: In the Scriptures all the way through He is like us and with us according to the flesh. He is the seed of David according to the flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don't go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh, but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus." - A.T. Jones, 1895 GC Sermon #17
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Of course Christ's mind was different than ours. That's why Paul says, "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus." If we already had His mind, Paul wouldn't need to say that. Jones said things like "Don't drag His mind into this. It doesn't say in the likeness of sinful mind, but in the likeness of sinful flesh."
Jones and Waggoner (and Prescott) were always clear about the differences between the mind and the flesh.
I see that you agree with Jones. And with the clear distinction between flesh and mind that we see expressed in these statements, I agree with both of you. This is exactly where we are in the "Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?" thread. Since we've gone astray from this thread's topic, we should continue this line of discussion there.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48218
03/22/06 08:03 PM
03/22/06 08:03 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,636
California, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
I also believe that when we are abiding in Jesus we are in the same state as was Jesus, that is, our appetites and passions are under the control of sanctified reason and conscience.
I agree that those who are abiding in Christ will have the appetites and passions under the control of sanctified reason and conscience.
But I do not agree that such a person is "in the same state as was Jesus." At least, not exactly the same. There was a significant difference. The difference is hinted at in the last two statements I posted.
quote:
As His representatives among men, God does not choose angels who have never fallen, but human beings, men of like passions with those they seek to save. Christ took humanity that He might reach humanity. {AA 134.2}
He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. {2T 201.2}
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Just because Jesus was tempted from within like we are it does not mean He is guilty of sinning.
I am not ready to accept that Jesus was "tempted from within like we are" as is. I will start another thread for that discussion.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48219
03/22/06 08:59 PM
03/22/06 08:59 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Originally posted by Tom Ewall: No, Jones didn't write there "isn't a particle of difference" between us and Christ. Jesus was sinless. He was God in human flesh. To say such a thing would be absurd. Jones never said anything like this. Here's what he said. quote:Then in His human nature there is not a particle of difference between Him and you. - A.T. Jones, 1895 GC Sermon #13 This is much different than your original representation of what he said, which would have been absurd. What he actually did write is reasonable, especially in context: quote:
Now we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, but not as man was made when he was first made a little lower than the angels, but as man is since he sinned and became still lower than the angels. That is where we see Jesus. Let us read and see: We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels. What for? "For the suffering of death." Then Christ's being made as much lower than the angels as man is, is as much lower than the angels as man is since he sinned and became subject to death. We see him "crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him [it was appropriate for him], for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
Therefore, as He became subject to suffering and death, this demonstrates strongly enough that the point lower than the angels at which Christ came to stand; where He does stand and where "we see him," is the point to which man came when he, in sin, stepped still lower than where God made him--even then a little lower than the angels.
Again: the sixteenth verse: "Verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. He took not on him the nature of angels but he took on Him the nature of Abraham. But the nature of Abraham and of the seed of Abraham is only human nature.
Again: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." In how many things? All things. Then in His human nature there is not a particle of difference between Him and you.
This is clear isn't it?
quote:Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Here you write "but when pressed." This is as unadvised as saying "not even." "When pressed" makes it sound like Jones was under some sort of duress, as if he were forced to say something he didn't want to.
All Jones did was share the truth about Christ to us. There was no duress involved.
A:I don't know what kind of duress Jones was under, if any. I don't know what he did or did not feel like saying. I just have his statements. As I am neither Jones' apologist nor detractor, and I have no vested interest in his correctness on Christ's nature, I can go either way.
That's good. Then why write things which have a bias to them, like "not even" and "when pressed"? Why not leave such comments, which give an impression, out?
What I do know is that he made the statement above, then a few sermons later, made the statement below. A book I read said that between the two statements, some delegates brought to his attention what the SOP says regarding Christ's not having "like passions" with us. What he felt about it is of minor importance to me compared to what he said.
Then again, why not leave commentaries as to Jones' feelings out of your comments?
quote:Now as to Christ's not having "like passions" with us: In the Scriptures all the way through He is like us and with us according to the flesh. He is the seed of David according to the flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don't go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh, but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus." - A.T. Jones, 1895 GC Sermon #17
quote:Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Of course Christ's mind was different than ours. That's why Paul says, "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus." If we already had His mind, Paul wouldn't need to say that. Jones said things like "Don't drag His mind into this. It doesn't say in the likeness of sinful mind, but in the likeness of sinful flesh."
Jones and Waggoner (and Prescott) were always clear about the differences between the mind and the flesh.
A:I see that you agree with Jones. And with the clear distinction between flesh and mind that we see expressed in these statements, I agree with both of you. This is exactly where we are in the "Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?" thread. Since we've gone astray from this thread's topic, we should continue this line of discussion there.
Ok. I can't think of anything in Jones' theology I disagree with off the top of my head. So it's very likely whatever you quoted of his I would agree with.
Ellen White said that both he and Waggoner brought us a message from God and that we should open our hearts to its life-giving rays. I agree with her. I've been blessed by the things they've written.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48220
03/22/06 10:16 PM
03/22/06 10:16 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,636
California, USA
|
|
T: This is much different than your original representation of what he said, which would have been absurd. What he actually did write is reasonable, especially in context: This is clear isn't it?
No, it isn't clear to me. It was somewhat clarified by sermon #17, but not completely. Again, fuller treatment will be in the other thread.
A:I don't know what kind of duress Jones was under, if any. I don't know what he did or did not feel like saying. I just have his statements. As I am neither Jones' apologist nor detractor, and I have no vested interest in his correctness on Christ's nature, I can go either way.
T: That's good. Then why write things which have a bias to them, like "not even" and "when pressed"? Why not leave such comments, which give an impression, out? ... Then again, why not leave commentaries as to Jones' feelings out of your comments?
We find in the SOP that Jones was sometimes given to overstatement. That's why I originally commented that Jones, even with his ability to state matters more strongly than called for, moderated himself when it came to Christ's mind.
As for his feelings, I made no commentary on them. What I do state is that Jones, the 2nd-most emphatic commentator on the topic (as far as I know), even he did not teach Christ's equivalence to fallen man regarding the mind. He clarified himself on this point after delegates pressed the matter to his attention. All this is to point out that, with the possible exception of one person, ALL are agreed that there is a significant difference between Christ's mind and fallen minds.
With that, I hope to lay his feelings to rest, and proceed with his teachings.
T: Ellen White said that both he and Waggoner brought us a message from God and that we should open our hearts to its life-giving rays. I agree with her. I've been blessed by the things they've written.
Ditto, but only so far as I can confirm their congruence with inspired commentary. I'm not convinced that all they said and wrote were life-giving.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48221
03/22/06 10:40 PM
03/22/06 10:40 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
T: This is much different than your original representation of what he said, which would have been absurd. What he actually did write is reasonable, especially in context: This is clear isn't it?
No, it isn't clear to me. It was somewhat clarified by sermon #17, but not completely. Again, fuller treatment will be in the other thread.
I guess there are some who are careless in their way of saying things, and say something like "Jesus was just like us." which is clearly a rediculous thing to say. Jesus is as far superior to us as the heavens are higher than the earth. As eternity rolls by, that will always be the case. Anyway I've found that Jones and Waggoner are always careful to clarify by saying something like "in His flesh" or "in His human nature" (which they use synonymously). And indeed the quote your provided has this clarification.
A:I don't know what kind of duress Jones was under, if any. I don't know what he did or did not feel like saying. I just have his statements. As I am neither Jones' apologist nor detractor, and I have no vested interest in his correctness on Christ's nature, I can go either way.
T: That's good. Then why write things which have a bias to them, like "not even" and "when pressed"? Why not leave such comments, which give an impression, out? ... Then again, why not leave commentaries as to Jones' feelings out of your comments?
We find in the SOP that Jones was sometimes given to overstatement. That's why I originally commented that Jones, even with his ability to state matters more strongly than called for, moderated himself when it came to Christ's mind.
I don't think this is true, at least not until after 1900. There's one place where she relates a dream she had, which would indicate there was a possiblity that *could* happen, but there's no evidence it did. Remember during this time (in the early and mid 1890's) God was using Jones and Waggoner in a mighty way. They were doing His bidding, brining His message to us. Through the Spirit of Prophecy, she tells us this many, many times, in many different ways. Her endorsements of Jones and Waggoner total of 1,000. So given the Lord was using them, and they were open to do His will, it makes sense that God would warn them of a possible problem before it happened, which appears to be precisely what happened.
As for his feelings, I made no commentary on them. What I do state is that Jones, the 2nd-most emphatic commentator on the topic (as far as I know), even he did not teach Christ's equivalence to fallen man regarding the mind. He clarified himself on this point after delegates pressed the matter to his attention. All this is to point out that, with the possible exception of one person, ALL are agreed that there is a significant difference between Christ's mind and fallen minds.
With that, I hope to lay his feelings to rest, and proceed with his teachings.
Ok. Although you've got me curious. There's someone who thinks Jesus was the same as we are as far as His mind is concerned? That's hard to believe. Why then would we be told to let His mind be in us, if we already had it?
T: Ellen White said that both he and Waggoner brought us a message from God and that we should open our hearts to its life-giving rays. I agree with her. I've been blessed by the things they've written.
Ditto, but only so far as I can confirm their congruence with inspired commentary. I'm not convinced that all they said and wrote were life-giving.
Of course we want to verify any writings are consistent with Scripture, but we should trust that if we ask God for bread, He won't give us a serpent. Given the things Ellen White wrote about their message, such as a message that will "lighten the earth with glory," it would be very surprising, saying some odd things about God's character, if it were actually defective in some way. Why would God send us something defective? Why wouldn't He warn us? Why would He so highly recommend it through a prophet?
Of course each one must study these things for himself, but in my study I've only come across one theological error during the time when Ellen White was endorsing them. The error was that Waggoner was teaching that because Jesus had perfect faith He could not sin. EGW correct him, and he accepted the correction. That's the only one I'm aware of.
If we read something with the purpose of receiving truth, then we are much more likely to receive a blessing than if we read critically, looking for error. I'm not saying you are doing this, because I wouldn't dare to judge your motivation. I'm just pointing out a danger I have seen happen, and a danger that happened during Jones and Waggoner's time, of which Ellen White often commented.
You have a sharp mind, Arnold, and a good way of putting things (that is, a good spirit, a good tone). I've appreciated our conversations and look forward to the thread you're wanting to start.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48222
03/23/06 12:08 AM
03/23/06 12:08 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,636
California, USA
|
|
Although you've got me curious. There's someone who thinks Jesus was the same as we are as far as His mind is concerned?I'm not sure. I said it was *possible*, but I have not confirmed it yet. Considering how much time I spend here, it might never happen. ![[Animated Laughter]](graemlins/laugh.gif) Of course we want to verify any writings are consistent with Scripture, but we should trust that if we ask God for bread, He won't give us a serpent.This reminds me of a time on the old CompuServe forum when someone suggested that Paul taught error, stemming from his Pharisaical background. That got shot down pretty quickly. If we read something with the purpose of receiving truth, then we are much more likely to receive a blessing than if we read critically, looking for error.I agree. There are many things that look wrong at first glance, but has precious gems of truth under the surface. That's why I ask a lot of questions. When I hear something new, I want to really understand what is meant. Only if I can't find any way to fit the new piece with the puzzle pieces from the Bible/SOP do I fully reject it as error. When that happens, I usually find myself with a better grasp of truth and error. You have a sharp mind, Arnold, and a good way of putting things (that is, a good spirit, a good tone).We computer guys are like that, you know. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48223
03/23/06 12:21 AM
03/23/06 12:21 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,636
California, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
I've appreciated our conversations and look forward to the thread you're wanting to start.
I just put it up. "primary source of Christ's temptations" in SDA Church Issues.
|
|
|
Re: Understanding Temptation
#48224
03/23/06 02:32 AM
03/23/06 02:32 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
I am not ready to accept that Jesus was "tempted from within like we are" as is. I will start another thread for that discussion.
Okay.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
