Posted By: Daryl
Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/04/10 09:33 PM
Here is the link to this week's study and discussion material:
http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/10c/less06.html
http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/10c/less06.html
Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/04/10 09:41 PM
I like the following EGW quote taken from Thursday's material:
“The second Adam was a free moral agent, held responsible for his conduct. Surrounded by intensely subtle and misleading influences, He was much less favorably situated than was the first Adam to lead a sinless life. Yet in the midst of sinners He resisted every temptation to sin, and maintained His innocency. He was ever sinless.”—Ellen G. White Comments, The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1074.
Quote:
“The second Adam was a free moral agent, held responsible for his conduct. Surrounded by intensely subtle and misleading influences, He was much less favorably situated than was the first Adam to lead a sinless life. Yet in the midst of sinners He resisted every temptation to sin, and maintained His innocency. He was ever sinless.”—Ellen G. White Comments, The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1074.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/08/10 03:48 AM
Quote:
Commentators have argued more over this passage of Scripture than over most others. Perhaps the reason is, as noted in The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 529, that these commentators “attempt to use the passage for purposes other than Paul intended.”
One point they argue over is: in what way was Adam’s sin passed on to his posterity? Did Adam’s descendants share the guilt of Adam’s sin, or are they guilty before God because of their own sin? Though folk have tried to get the answer to that question from this text, that’s not the issue Paul was dealing with.
One point they argue over is: in what way was Adam’s sin passed on to his posterity? Did Adam’s descendants share the guilt of Adam’s sin, or are they guilty before God because of their own sin? Though folk have tried to get the answer to that question from this text, that’s not the issue Paul was dealing with.
SDA theologians on the fence, as usual, about the subject of original sin.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/08/10 07:45 PM
1)Before the 1950's, there was clarity on the issue of original sin. Being "on the fence" came as a result of not simply holding to the position we had held until that time.
2)Notwithstanding this, I think the point of the quote is well taken, that Paul is being made to deal with an issue he's not dealing with. That happens *all the time*.
Poor Paul. (or poor us).
2)Notwithstanding this, I think the point of the quote is well taken, that Paul is being made to deal with an issue he's not dealing with. That happens *all the time*.
Poor Paul. (or poor us).
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/09/10 07:32 PM
What was the position before the 1950's and what is the position now? In fact, I wonder if there is any position now.
I don't think Paul is being made to deal with an issue he is not dealing with. In fact, Ellen White expands on Paul in quotes like the following ones:
"The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death." {9MR 236.1}
"Christ volunteered to come to this earth and stand at the head of fallen human beings, who were heirs of guilt, under sentence of eternal death. We must have perished had He not borne our guilt and the wrath of God." {12MR 61.1}
"We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression." {FW 88.3}
I don't think Paul is being made to deal with an issue he is not dealing with. In fact, Ellen White expands on Paul in quotes like the following ones:
"The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death." {9MR 236.1}
"Christ volunteered to come to this earth and stand at the head of fallen human beings, who were heirs of guilt, under sentence of eternal death. We must have perished had He not borne our guilt and the wrath of God." {12MR 61.1}
"We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression." {FW 88.3}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 01:51 AM
Quote:
What was the position before the 1950's and what is the position now? In fact, I wonder if there is any position now.
Before the 1950's, it was basically what Jones and Waggoner taught. "Bible Reading for the Home" quoted from Waggoner in regards to the questions related to Christ's humanity.
I think the Palmdale Conference in around 1976 said that either pre or post positions were acceptable. How that works out varies from place to place. In the U.S., I would say one could hold either position as an employee without a problem. In Brazil, it appeared to me that if you were a post, you'd better be very careful. Since you're living there, I'd be interested in your perspective. At any rate, opinion in the U.S. is much more divided than there. In Brazil, what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, was that many of the posts were negative in regards to the organization. I don't see that so much here. There are some like that, but there are many just "regular" SDA's who are posts, who have no issues with leadership.
Quote:
I don't think Paul is being made to deal with an issue he is not dealing with.
I think most people have very little idea, if even that, as to what the culture was like in Paul's time, or the issues he was dealing with. He is interpreted with post-reformation lenses, and pretty much totally without regard to historical considerations.
I don't see that the EGW quotes have anything to do with either Paul's culture or the issues he was facing. I don't think it was her function to do this (to be a Pauline scholar) however.
If you recall what Kevin wrote (Kevin H.) in regards to EGW's ministry and writings, I thought he did a good job explaining it.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 03:26 AM
As it obviously can't be both pre and post, how can the belief of both be advocated in allowing both to be believed?
Posted By: Bobryan
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 02:42 PM
Romans 5 -- all died for all sinned.
Romans 3 -- all have sinned.
So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.
However as we see in Romans 3 - every human has a depraved sinful nature EVEN before they commit their first sin -- and for that we need a savior, we need the new birth, the Gospel.
So even an infant that dies, who obviously never sinned - requires the benefit of the gospel to remove the sinful nature.
By contrast Ellen White is clear that Christ came with the sinless nature of Adam before the fall - but with the fallen physical nature of mankind in his day (4,000 years of physical devolution) - not of Adam after the fall.
in Christ,
Bob
Romans 3 -- all have sinned.
So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.
However as we see in Romans 3 - every human has a depraved sinful nature EVEN before they commit their first sin -- and for that we need a savior, we need the new birth, the Gospel.
So even an infant that dies, who obviously never sinned - requires the benefit of the gospel to remove the sinful nature.
By contrast Ellen White is clear that Christ came with the sinless nature of Adam before the fall - but with the fallen physical nature of mankind in his day (4,000 years of physical devolution) - not of Adam after the fall.
in Christ,
Bob
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 05:54 PM
Quote:
R: What was the position before the 1950's and what is the position now? In fact, I wonder if there is any position now.
T: Before the 1950's, it was basically what Jones and Waggoner taught. ... I think the Palmdale Conference in around 1976 said that either pre or post positions were acceptable.
T: Before the 1950's, it was basically what Jones and Waggoner taught. ... I think the Palmdale Conference in around 1976 said that either pre or post positions were acceptable.
In fact, I was just taking issue with their assertion:
Quote:
One point they argue over is: in what way was Adam’s sin passed on to his posterity? Did Adam’s descendants share the guilt of Adam’s sin, or are they guilty before God because of their own sin? Though folk have tried to get the answer to that question from this text, that’s not the issue Paul was dealing with.
To me, trying to evade the implications of what Paul is saying is, as we say here, trying to block the sunlight with a sieve. It's obvious we share Adam's guilt. Ellen White says this clearly. I hadn't yet realized why SDA theologians stay on the fence about this subject, but what you said opened my eyes. If sin is just an act of the will, nobody is born in sin, and if theologians assume the position that man is born in sin they will automatically be assuming the pre-fall position, and they can't do that, since the Church allows for both positions.
Therefore, they contradict themselves all the time. In the section on "Sin" in the Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, for instance, John Fowler says that sin is a state (p. 246), a state of rebellion, and then says that "tendency to sin ... is not sin" (p. 257). But of course tendencies to sin are rebellious tendencies.
Quote:
In Brazil, it appeared to me that if you were a post, you'd better be very careful. Since you're living there, I'd be interested in your perspective. At any rate, opinion in the U.S. is much more divided than there. In Brazil, what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, was that many of the posts were negative in regards to the organization. I don't see that so much here. There are some like that, but there are many just "regular" SDA's who are posts, who have no issues with leadership.
I would say your assessment of the situation is correct. Since most posts are negative in regards to the organizations, those in the post camp are viewed suspiciously.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 06:09 PM
Quote:
As it obviously can't be both pre and post, how can the belief of both be advocated in allowing both to be believed?
I don't know if there is an answer to this question.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 06:16 PM
Quote:
So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.
OK, but his sin has its root in Adam's sin (which has its root in Satan's sin), and his sin is an echo of Adam's sin.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 06:36 PM
Originally Posted By: Daryl
As it obviously can't be both pre and post, how can the belief of both be advocated in allowing both to be believed?
There are many issues the church allows for differences of opinion. The SDA church has had a history of not wanting to set things in stone, in order to allow for growth.
Regarding this particular issue, if the church made a pronouncement of some sort, it would cause a terrific division.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 06:39 PM
Originally Posted By: Bob
So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.
Sin is not something one "pays for" by way of "torment of fire and brimstone." Sin causes suffering, misery and pain by virtue of what it is. Sin is transgression of the law, which is agape, putting self first, instead of others (primarily God). Selfishness can do no other but lead to suffering, misery and death.
If we consider how Christ died, we can see what the impact of sin is. Note that Christ did not suffer the "torment of fire and brimstone" to "pay for" sin.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 06:50 PM
Quote:
To me, trying to evade the implications of what Paul is saying is, as we say here, trying to block the sunlight with a sieve.
I don't think Paul had in mind anything like the theological discussions that we are dealing with. I think he would be (amused/horrified) to see his words taken as they have been, to build the sort of doctrines that have been built.
Quote:
It's obvious we share Adam's guilt.
It's not obvious what this means though.
Quote:
Ellen White says this clearly.
My memory of this quote is that she is not speaking in the sense that a Catholic would, or in the Catholic sense of "original sin," but in terms of the effect of Adam's sin.
Quote:
I hadn't yet realized why SDA theologians stay on the fence about this subject, but what you said opened my eyes. If sin is just an act of the will, nobody is born in sin, and if theologians assume the position that man is born in sin they will automatically be assuming the pre-fall position, and they can't do that, since the Church allows for both positions.
The idea that sin is just an act of the will is not a necessary result of holding to the post position in regards to Christ's human nature. For example:
Quote:
Sin is a personal matter. A man is guilty only of his own sins, and not of those which another has committed. Now I can not sin where I am not, but only where I am. Sin is in the heart of man; "for from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness; all these evil things come from within." Mark 7:21-23. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." Jer.17:9. Sin is in every fiber of our being by nature. We are born in sin, and our life is sin, so that sin can not be taken from us without taking our life. What I need is freedom from my own personal sin,--that sin which not only has been committed by me personally, but which dwells in the heart,--the sin which constitutes the whole of my life.
"His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." Prov.5:22. "For though thou wash thee with niter, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before Me, saith the Lord." Jer.2:22. My sin is committed by myself, in myself, and I can not separate it from me. Cast it on the Lord? Ah, yes, that is right, but how? Can I gather it up in my hands, and cast it from me, so that it will light upon Him?--I can not. If I could separate it but a hair's breadth from me, then I should be safe, no matter what became of it, since it would not be found in me. In that case I could dispense with Christ; for if sin were not found on me, it would make no matter to me where it was found. If I could gather up my sins so as to lay them upon Christ crucified apart from me, then I would not need to put them on Him. They would then be away from me, and that would clear me. But no works of any kind that I can do can save me; therefore, all my efforts to separate myself from my sins are unavailing.
Christ Bears the Sin in Us.
It is evident from what has been said that whoever bears my sins must come where I am, yea, must come into me. And this is just what Christ does. Christ is the Word, and to all sinners, who would excuse themselves by saying that they can not know what God requires of them, He says, "The Word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." Deut.30:11-14. Therefore, He says, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Rom.10:9. What shall we confess about the Lord Jesus?--Why, confess the truth, that He is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart, and believe that He is there risen from the dead. "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" Eph.4:9. The risen Saviour is the crucified Saviour. As Christ risen is in the heart of the sinner, therefore, Christ crucified is there. If it were not so, there would be no hope for any. A man may believe that Jesus was crucified eighteen hundred years ago, and may die in his sins; but he who believes that Christ is crucified and risen in him, has salvation.
All that any man in the world has to do in order to be saved, is to believe the truth, that is, to recognize and acknowledge facts, to see things just as they actually are, and to confess them. Whoever believes that Christ is crucified in him, which is the fact in the case of every man, and confesses that the crucified Christ is also risen, and that He dwells in him by and with the power of the resurrection, is saved from sin, and will be saved as long as he holds fast his confession. This is the only true confession of faith. (Waggoner, the Glad Tiding)
"His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." Prov.5:22. "For though thou wash thee with niter, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before Me, saith the Lord." Jer.2:22. My sin is committed by myself, in myself, and I can not separate it from me. Cast it on the Lord? Ah, yes, that is right, but how? Can I gather it up in my hands, and cast it from me, so that it will light upon Him?--I can not. If I could separate it but a hair's breadth from me, then I should be safe, no matter what became of it, since it would not be found in me. In that case I could dispense with Christ; for if sin were not found on me, it would make no matter to me where it was found. If I could gather up my sins so as to lay them upon Christ crucified apart from me, then I would not need to put them on Him. They would then be away from me, and that would clear me. But no works of any kind that I can do can save me; therefore, all my efforts to separate myself from my sins are unavailing.
Christ Bears the Sin in Us.
It is evident from what has been said that whoever bears my sins must come where I am, yea, must come into me. And this is just what Christ does. Christ is the Word, and to all sinners, who would excuse themselves by saying that they can not know what God requires of them, He says, "The Word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." Deut.30:11-14. Therefore, He says, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Rom.10:9. What shall we confess about the Lord Jesus?--Why, confess the truth, that He is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart, and believe that He is there risen from the dead. "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" Eph.4:9. The risen Saviour is the crucified Saviour. As Christ risen is in the heart of the sinner, therefore, Christ crucified is there. If it were not so, there would be no hope for any. A man may believe that Jesus was crucified eighteen hundred years ago, and may die in his sins; but he who believes that Christ is crucified and risen in him, has salvation.
All that any man in the world has to do in order to be saved, is to believe the truth, that is, to recognize and acknowledge facts, to see things just as they actually are, and to confess them. Whoever believes that Christ is crucified in him, which is the fact in the case of every man, and confesses that the crucified Christ is also risen, and that He dwells in him by and with the power of the resurrection, is saved from sin, and will be saved as long as he holds fast his confession. This is the only true confession of faith. (Waggoner, the Glad Tiding)
This is a long quote, which I quoted to get the whole thought, but the really relevant part to the point I was making is this:
Quote:
Sin is in every fiber of our being by nature. We are born in sin, and our life is sin ...
It seems evident to me that Waggoner conceived of sin as more than simply an act of the will, yet Waggoner was postlapsarian. So it wouldn't follow that one could take issue with the idea that sin is not merely an act of the will and yet not be postlapsarian. (triple negative!)
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 06:57 PM
If we are born in sin, could you define what sin is in a baby?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 07:26 PM
"All have sinned" includes infants. It even includes infants still in the womb. Of course they sin ignorantly and as such God does not hold them accountable because Jesus' perfect life and death atones for the sins people, including infants, commit ignorantly and/or unwittingly. No one is guilty of the sins someone else commits. For this reason Jesus was born with the same sinful flesh nature people inherit at birth and He did so without incurring guilt.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 07:33 PM
PS - Infants sin in the way they respond to the stimuli effecting them. When they scream and turn beet red because they are tired or hungry or whatever they are responding in a sinful manner. Not until they grow up and experience rebirth and actively, aggressively abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature will they be able to respond to stuff and stimuli in a godly manner.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 09:22 PM
Quote:
If we are born in sin, could you define what sin is in a baby?
The preceding sentence was that sin is in every fiber of our being by nature, so I'd assume that's what Waggoner had in mind.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 09:23 PM
Originally Posted By: MM
"All have sinned" includes infants. It even includes infants still in the womb.
Starting when? At the moment of conception? Or some time after that? If after the point of conception, when?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 10:32 PM
There is a time when unborn infants begin to respond to stimuli affecting them. I imagine it begins to happen during the third trimester. Infants in the third trimester can live outside the womb.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/10/10 10:47 PM
So, in your view, in the third trimester fetuses start sinning, because of the way they respond to stimuli. Before this time, they are not sinning, because they do not respond to stimuli. This is correctly representing your idea?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/11/10 04:43 AM
Quote:
R: If we are born in sin, could you define what sin is in a baby?
T: The preceding sentence was that sin is in every fiber of our being by nature, so I'd assume that's what Waggoner had in mind.
T: The preceding sentence was that sin is in every fiber of our being by nature, so I'd assume that's what Waggoner had in mind.
I can only understand this in terms of sinful tendencies. How do you understand it?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/11/10 05:14 PM
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: There is a time when unborn infants begin to respond to stimuli affecting them. I imagine it begins to happen during the third trimester. Infants in the third trimester can live outside the womb.
T: So, in your view, in the third trimester fetuses start sinning, because of the way they respond to stimuli. Before this time, they are not sinning, because they do not respond to stimuli. This is correctly representing your idea?
T: So, in your view, in the third trimester fetuses start sinning, because of the way they respond to stimuli. Before this time, they are not sinning, because they do not respond to stimuli. This is correctly representing your idea?
Yes. They are incapable of responding to stimuli in sinful ways before a certain time because they haven't developed enough as a human to do so.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/11/10 05:17 PM
Rosangela, I cannot understand why you believe having sinful tendencies (defects, weaknesses, imperfections) makes people just as guilty in the sight of God as actually indulging them in sinful ways (thoughts, words, actions).
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/12/10 04:59 AM
Mike,
I don't believe having sinful tendencies makes people *just as guilty* in the sight of God as actually indulging them. I believe inherited sinful tendencies are sins of ignorance until you become aware of them, and that you just become aware of them when they manifest themselves in sinful actions, thoughts or words.
I don't believe having sinful tendencies makes people *just as guilty* in the sight of God as actually indulging them. I believe inherited sinful tendencies are sins of ignorance until you become aware of them, and that you just become aware of them when they manifest themselves in sinful actions, thoughts or words.
Posted By: Colin
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/14/10 03:20 AM
Originally Posted By: Bobryan
Romans 5 -- all died for all sinned.
Romans 3 -- all have sinned.
So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.
However as we see in Romans 3 - every human has a depraved sinful nature EVEN before they commit their first sin -- and for that we need a savior, we need the new birth, the Gospel.
Romans 3 -- all have sinned.
So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.
However as we see in Romans 3 - every human has a depraved sinful nature EVEN before they commit their first sin -- and for that we need a savior, we need the new birth, the Gospel.
Yes, sinful nature, common to all of us, is degenerate and condemned for its sinfulness. Each wicked unbeliever ending up in hell is punished there for his own sin and sinfulness, alongside Satan.
Quote:
By contrast Ellen White is clear that Christ came with the sinless nature of Adam before the fall - but with the fallen physical nature of mankind in his day (4,000 years of physical devolution) - not of Adam after the fall.....
Thank you for quoting the official church position on Christ's humanity. No more books favouring that view came out after Roy Adam's "The Humanity of Christ" (1994)...
"Touched with Our Feelings", by the late Prof. Jean Zurcher of our Collonge Seminary in France, and of the Euro-Africa Division BRI, in Switzerland, came out in 1999 through the Review (it was translated from his original French), documenting the change by the church on Christ's humanity from sinful to sinless, in 1949.
The church's position is wrong in interpreting Ellen White as it does, therefore. The official position is a variation on the 1949 position, since that position is now the other minority of the three positions in the church. It is critical to gospel truth to hold to the original, true position - as our current leading scholars concede it is the original position.
Quote:
in Christ,
Bob
Bob
Posted By: Colin
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/14/10 03:34 AM
Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: Bob
So when the sinner burns in hell - the sins he pays for via the torment of fire and brimstone Rev 14:10 - is not the sin of Adam - but his own sin.
Sin is not something one "pays for" by way of "torment of fire and brimstone." Sin causes suffering, misery and pain by virtue of what it is. Sin is transgression of the law, which is agape, putting self first, instead of others (primarily God). Selfishness can do no other but lead to suffering, misery and death.
If we consider how Christ died, we can see what the impact of sin is. Note that Christ did not suffer the "torment of fire and brimstone" to "pay for" sin.
Note, Tom, Christ tasted death for every man.
The condemnation every man is under is not from personal guilt but from being a sinful human: that requires eternal death to extinguish it and free us from it - free & redeem us from our sinful human nature which is condemned.
This is the basic legal bondage we have which Rom 7:1-4 deals with: Christ took our sinful nature as his own, and died the death due it, freeing us from our sinfulness to his righteousness - living to God, despite being trapped in our flesh still. Thus he lived by faith, and so do we.
Posted By: Colin
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/14/10 04:58 AM
Rom 7 is about the two Adams. They are similar for their positions as heads of the same race, not for sharing the innocency of Adam's created humanity: Christ was born under the law - that involves sinful flesh.
The main point of this chapter is that Adam's fall into sin affected all men, and Christ's meritoriously righteous life affected all men. It's not just a gift for all men, it's given to all men: "came upon all men."
The German Quarterly says about Rom 5:18 particularly is that there's nothing "automatic" in salvation. Clearly there is, actually, as by grace we saved through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus - without our involvement! We automatically have a Saviour, who is Saviour of the world, too.
The depth of Rom 5 is simply that Adam caused by his action a condemnation for his descendants, and Christ, the second Adam, justified the world by his action, in his person. Therefore, sinners may believe, since in Christ they are linked by his sinful humanity which he took to become a man to their Redeemer.
The main point of this chapter is that Adam's fall into sin affected all men, and Christ's meritoriously righteous life affected all men. It's not just a gift for all men, it's given to all men: "came upon all men."
The German Quarterly says about Rom 5:18 particularly is that there's nothing "automatic" in salvation. Clearly there is, actually, as by grace we saved through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus - without our involvement! We automatically have a Saviour, who is Saviour of the world, too.
The depth of Rom 5 is simply that Adam caused by his action a condemnation for his descendants, and Christ, the second Adam, justified the world by his action, in his person. Therefore, sinners may believe, since in Christ they are linked by his sinful humanity which he took to become a man to their Redeemer.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/15/10 02:11 AM
Quote:
Christ, the second Adam, justified the world by his action, in his person.
The only justification the Bible speaks about is justification by faith.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/15/10 08:22 AM
Quote:
(Christ) took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race of men to favor with God. . . . {1SM 343.2}
Many places in Scripture speak of the corporate work which Christ did for humanity. I think Prescott, in the 1895 GCB, was the first Adventist to speak of the different ways "justification" is used in Scripture.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/15/10 07:36 PM
Christ did do a corporate work for all men. But what He did didn't justify them. They are not automatically considered righteous because of what He did.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/17/10 05:28 PM
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
M: Rosangela, I cannot understand why you believe having sinful tendencies (defects, weaknesses, imperfections) makes people just as guilty in the sight of God as actually indulging them in sinful ways (thoughts, words, actions).
R: I don't believe having sinful tendencies makes people *just as guilty* in the sight of God as actually indulging them. I believe inherited sinful tendencies are sins of ignorance until you become aware of them, and that you just become aware of them when they manifest themselves in sinful actions, thoughts or words.
R: I don't believe having sinful tendencies makes people *just as guilty* in the sight of God as actually indulging them. I believe inherited sinful tendencies are sins of ignorance until you become aware of them, and that you just become aware of them when they manifest themselves in sinful actions, thoughts or words.
But aren't you saying they are indulging them ignorantly? In other words, aren't you saying they are sinning ignorantly?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/17/10 11:59 PM
Maybe they are indulging them ignorantly, maybe they aren't. I think you may, for instance, have a tendency to self-pity, but it is not triggered until certain circumstances occur.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/18/10 03:12 AM
Again, though, I don't see how you can say having a "sinful tendency" is synonymous with sinning and guilt. Are people guilty of something even if they never indulge it? If so, what are they guilty of? Are they guilty of sinning simply because they possess the potential to indulge it? What about Adam and Eve? Were they guilty of something because they possessed the potential to sin?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/18/10 02:58 PM
Quote:
Are people guilty of something even if they never indulge it? If so, what are they guilty of?
They are guilty of selfishness, for they have selfish inclinations. The problem is not just in acting selfishly, but in being selfish, whether one is aware of this or not.
Quote:
What about Adam and Eve? Were they guilty of something because they possessed the potential to sin?
They weren't selfish, there was nothing wrong at the core of their being.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/18/10 07:23 PM
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
They are guilty of selfishness, for they have selfish inclinations. The problem is not just in acting selfishly, but in being selfish, whether one is aware of this or not.
How can someone be selfish without acting selfishly (either in thought, word, or deed)?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/18/10 11:36 PM
Quote:
How can someone be selfish without acting selfishly (either in thought, word, or deed)?
Human beings are born with selfishness inwrought in their very being. Sooner or later, consciously or unconsciously, they will act selfishly. There is no way this doesn't happen, as there is no way a thorn bush doesn't produce thorns.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/19/10 08:48 PM
But you don't seem to make a distinction, so far as guilt and condemnation are concerned, between tendency and character. In other words, you seem to be saying merely having sinful tendencies and actually converting them into sinful traits of character by habitually sinning are essentially one and the same thing so far as guilt and condemnation are concerned. Have I misunderstood your position?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/19/10 11:12 PM
That's because my position is that we are born with a character (just like Adam was created with a character), and I see no difference between inherited sinful traits of character and cultivated sinful traits of character.
There is a wide field of usefulness before all who will work for the Master in caring for these children and youth who have been deprived of the watchful guidance of parents and the subduing influence of a Christian home. Many of them have inherited evil traits of character; and if left to grow up in ignorance, they will drift into associations that lead to vice and crime. These unpromising children need to be placed in a position favorable for the formation of a right character, that they may become children of God. {AH 167.3}
When a child reveals the wrong traits which it has inherited from its parents, shall they storm over this reproduction of their own defects?--No, no! Let parents keep a careful watch over themselves, guarding against all coarseness and roughness, lest these defects be seen once more in their children. {ST, September 25, 1901 par. 16}
There is a wide field of usefulness before all who will work for the Master in caring for these children and youth who have been deprived of the watchful guidance of parents and the subduing influence of a Christian home. Many of them have inherited evil traits of character; and if left to grow up in ignorance, they will drift into associations that lead to vice and crime. These unpromising children need to be placed in a position favorable for the formation of a right character, that they may become children of God. {AH 167.3}
When a child reveals the wrong traits which it has inherited from its parents, shall they storm over this reproduction of their own defects?--No, no! Let parents keep a careful watch over themselves, guarding against all coarseness and roughness, lest these defects be seen once more in their children. {ST, September 25, 1901 par. 16}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/20/10 02:10 AM
Yes, of course, people are born with inherited undeveloped traits of character. They are also born with inherited sinful tendencies. You seem to be suggesting they are one and the same thing. Or, did I misunderstand your position? Also, what is your position on cultivated traits of character as opposed to inherited traits of character? What, if any, do you see as a difference?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/21/10 02:14 AM
To me it's clear that traits of character and tendencies are one and the same thing.
A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. ... Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected. {AG 112.4}
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The question is asked, Why then are all not drawn to Christ?--It is because they will not come; because they do not choose to die to self; because they wish, as did Judas, to retain their own individuality, their own natural and cultivated traits of character. Altho they are given every opportunity, every privilege, yet they will not give up those tendencies which, if not cut away from the character, will separate them from Christ. If, continuing to cherish these traits of character, they were admitted to heaven, they would cause a second rebellion. {ST, July 8, 1897 par. 7}
Each soul inherits certain un-Christlike traits of character. It is the grand and noble work of a lifetime to keep under control these tendencies to wrong. {HP 231.2}
Also, I don't see a difference, in practical terms, between inherited and cultivated tendencies of character.
A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. ... Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected. {AG 112.4}
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The question is asked, Why then are all not drawn to Christ?--It is because they will not come; because they do not choose to die to self; because they wish, as did Judas, to retain their own individuality, their own natural and cultivated traits of character. Altho they are given every opportunity, every privilege, yet they will not give up those tendencies which, if not cut away from the character, will separate them from Christ. If, continuing to cherish these traits of character, they were admitted to heaven, they would cause a second rebellion. {ST, July 8, 1897 par. 7}
Each soul inherits certain un-Christlike traits of character. It is the grand and noble work of a lifetime to keep under control these tendencies to wrong. {HP 231.2}
Also, I don't see a difference, in practical terms, between inherited and cultivated tendencies of character.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/21/10 06:25 AM
Thank you for clearly expressing your belief. As you know, I believe inherited and cultivated tendencies (inclinations, propensities) and inherited and cultivated traits of character are separate but related aspects of human nature.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/21/10 09:19 PM
I have a vague remembrance that you believe that. What do you say is the difference between tendencies and traits?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/22/10 04:38 AM
A trait is a quality of character; whereas, a tendency is a propensity, inclination. Tendencies drive, propel, force people to develop, cultivate specific traits of character. Repetition of thoughts, feelings, words, and behavior results in character that counts in judgment.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/22/10 08:59 PM
Let's analyze an example. EGW says:
The great hereditary and cultivated tendency to evil with Judas was covetousness. {2MCP 598.3}
The leading traits in the character of Judas were covetousness and self-esteem. {ST, June 5, 1884 par. 3}
What is the difference between covetousness as a tendency and as a trait of character?
If a tendency was something people inherited and trait was something people cultivated, what you said would make sense. But Ellen White speaks indistinctly of hereditary and cultivated traits of character and of hereditary and cultivated tendencies of character, so I don't see how these could be different. There are many quotes that could be cited, but just two will suffice:
Objectionable traits of character, whether hereditary or cultivated, must be compared with the great rule of righteousness, and then conquered in the strength of Christ. {CT 449.1}
So long have they chosen to follow their own way and their own wisdom, so long have they cherished defective hereditary and cultivated tendencies of character, that they are blind and cannot see afar off. {1MCP 38.3}
The great hereditary and cultivated tendency to evil with Judas was covetousness. {2MCP 598.3}
The leading traits in the character of Judas were covetousness and self-esteem. {ST, June 5, 1884 par. 3}
What is the difference between covetousness as a tendency and as a trait of character?
If a tendency was something people inherited and trait was something people cultivated, what you said would make sense. But Ellen White speaks indistinctly of hereditary and cultivated traits of character and of hereditary and cultivated tendencies of character, so I don't see how these could be different. There are many quotes that could be cited, but just two will suffice:
Objectionable traits of character, whether hereditary or cultivated, must be compared with the great rule of righteousness, and then conquered in the strength of Christ. {CT 449.1}
So long have they chosen to follow their own way and their own wisdom, so long have they cherished defective hereditary and cultivated tendencies of character, that they are blind and cannot see afar off. {1MCP 38.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Lesson #6 - Expounding the FAITH - 08/23/10 03:47 AM
As I said, traits and tendencies are related but separate aspects of human nature. By the way, both traits and tendencies are inherited and can be cultivated. Developing specific traits of character strengthens and fortifies the corresponding tendencies parents bequeath to their children. Which in turn predisposes them to develop, cultivate the same traits of character. Nevertheless, God will not hold children accountable in judgment for the traits of character their parents cultivated. In judgment each person will be held accountable for the traits they themselves cultivated.