Here is the link to the study and discussion material for this study in preparation for the April 19th Sabbath School Class discussion:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/08b/less03nkjv.html

The Memory Text:

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14, NIV).

From the Sabbath Afternoon section:

And then there is this statement in the Sabbath Afternoon section:

This will probably be covered later on in the lesson study material.

I'm teaching the lesson for the teens, so do not have the adult lesson. I wonder how the human nature of Christ is treated. Probably with egg shells. It's astounding to me that this question is one which causes disagreement in our church.

The link to the study material is the adult lesson.

Tuesday's is titled He Took Our Nature (Gal. 4:4).

I read through it a couple of weeks ago. The controversial stuff is not addressed at all.

I don't think the disagreement is really about Christ's nature. I think the essence of the disagreement is in hamartiology.

Well, there can be more than one set of disagreements. I've very interested in your thoughts here, Arnold. Please explain.

Without going into too much detail at this time....

Everyone is pretty much agreed that Jesus came in the flesh, and that He did not sin. The point of difference is the precise definition of sin, because I think everyone believes Jesus was to the sinless side of that point by an infinitesimal amount.

So, for those who believe that inherent propensities to sin do not count as sin, they believe that Jesus had those propensities. Those who believe that such propensities are sin do not believe Jesus had them.

There are those who believe selfishness is not sin, as long as you do not perform selfish acts. Such people can believe that Jesus had selfishness, but He did not act on them. Those who believe that selfishness, acted out or not, is inherently sinful do not believe Jesus had selfishness.

When you do something against the law, but you did not know it was against the law, is that sin? IOW, is volition a necessary ingredient of sin? That's another dividing line.

There are many individual points of contention. But as I see it, the general problem is that there is no agreement on a precise definition of sin.

Is this really what you meant to say? "Infinitesimal" means by an amount infinitely small, which is to say, an amount so small that no smaller amount could be found.



As the SOP uses the word "propensities," actually participation in sin is implied, so I don't think anyone on either side of the question believes that Christ had these propensities. For example, the Baker letter states:





I don't know anyone who believes this either, that is, that Jesus Christ had selfishness. Keeping with the usage the SOP uses with an analagous term, "sinlessness," one could not say that Christ "had" selfishness, as this would imply He was selfish.

To explain further, from the SOP we read:



She also wrote:



So she wrote that Christ took our sinful nature (she never says Christ took a sinless human nature), but we should have no misgivings in regard to the sinlessness of that sinful human nature. Now that sounds like an oxymoron, or a contradiction, but it's not, as one considers how she uses these terms.



Christ took our nature in its fallen condition, but did not least

participate in its sin. Since she also writes



it seems evident that what she means is that Christ, while taking fallen, or sinful, human nature never acted contrary to the will of God, even though He took such a nature.

Getting back to how she uses the word "sinlessness," she uses that in relation to actual participation in sin. Christ never participated in sin. Again:



The following statement makes it clear that the sinless being spoken of is not in regards to the human nature we inherit:



There are those who by faith in Christ will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression, but their sinful, inherited human nature will not be changed, until corruption is changed into incorruption at Christ's Second Coming.

So we see that the "ness" at the end of the word implies participation in acts of righteousness, when attached to "sinless," and is not a static characteristic of an inherited nature. Similarly "selfishness" would imply, at least in terms of how Ellen White wrote, a participation in selfish acts, which, of course, we could not ascribe to Christ. So one could not say, in harmony with EGW's usage, that Christ "had selfishness," but I suppose one could say that Christ took a "selfish human nature," since she used terms like "sinful" "fallen" and "degraded" in reference to the human nature which Christ took, or inherited.

It may be that someone (like Denis Priebe has been accused of saying) may believe that Christ "had selfishness," but I would disagree with this statement, at least in terms of how EGW uses similar language, and this statement, which is just a statement by one human being, is by no means typical of those who believe the position that our church articulated regarding the human nature of Christ until at least 1947 was correct.

I believe one of the most significant things Ellen White wrote on this subject is the following:



What makes this statement so significant is its context. She had been preaching with Jones and Waggoner, the three of them preaching righteousness by faith together, and questions had been coming up in regards to what was being taught regarding Christ's human nature. Christ's human nature was a part of the 1888 message which Jones and Waggoner taught, and here we see EGW preaching along with them and defending the position which they presented.

I don't think the question of the precise meaning of sin is so much the question as so much the nature of Christ's flesh, in particular, in relation to Christ's temptations. For example, I myself would not define sin as being limited to the volitional definition, yet I believe that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature.

In regards to temptation, our heredity enters into our temptation. We have tendencies to sin which were inherited from our ancestors. Did Christ share in such a heredity as we have? Did he inherit tendencies to sin from His ancestors? Did His heredity enter into His temptations as our heredity enters into ours? This is where I think the real question lies.

Tom,

I'm trying very hard not to revive this controversy at this time, because I am very short on time these days. But you're making it very hard.

Just a quickie this time.


I disagree. "Propensity" does not imply participation, but a tendency.


Surely, we cannot be born having already participated in sin.

That is, unless we accept that vicarious/imputed sin counts. If so, then with only Jesus as the exception, all have sinned (aorist tense) and fall short of the glory of God. But that is usually anathema to postlapsarians.


That's from the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Note that there is no mention of participation, but only tendencies and inclinations.

In all the years I've heard it claimed that EGW used "propensity" to denote actual participation in sin, I have not seen one contemporary reference that uses it that way.