I forgot this topic was in the Quarterly!...

Before raising perhaps the obvious contentious issue, there's this on Sunday's section This is a wonderful truth, but a thought comes to mind: I've been taught several times over the last two decades that the Son of God didn't die but the Son of man did because divinity can't die. How does God save us through Jesus if God's Son didn't actually die?

Moreover, the sacrifice needed to be of greater value than Adam BEFORE his fall.

We know that Christ existed prior to the Incarnation. As far as I know, I don't think anybody here is disputing this.

Relative to the Incarnation, in what form and under what name or title did Christ exist prior to the Incarnation?

Also, how did the Incarnation take place?

Yes, some of us still believe Jesus lay down his divine life for our atonement, eh. A sacrifice worthy of the law whose penalty was being suffered.

We Adventists still try to think that in his pre-existence Christ looked much like us, since he appeared to Abraham as a man and we are made in his image, which he shares with his Father - a physical and character resemblance. As for name or title, Word, Wisdom, and Son are all well known: the titles in Isaiah 9:6 are Messianic titles - including quite likely everlasting Father of the human race, as the Second Adam.

Name is a significant word, since there is thinking today that even Father, Son & Holy Spirit are titles of adopted roles which are identities - just roles for the Bible's salvation project. Such allows for the potential of interchangeable titles/roles, as has been mentioned in week of prayer and Sabbath School books. Instead of adopted roles many Adventists still hold to the identities of Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is also their names.

How did the incarnation take place?! I thought that's an unknown?!! Doesn't it just say that God's Spirit did it?

Colin, Jesus did indeed die. He did not pretend to die. Tom posted a SOP quote awhile ago which said if Jesus had failed on the cross He would have remained in the tomb. True, divinity did not die, but Jesus was/is a combination of divinity and humanity. Thus, He depends on His humanity to live among us in His divinity.

This isn't the quote Tom posted, but it's nice one:

Jesus said to Mary, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." When He closed His eyes in death upon the cross, the soul of Christ did not go at once to heaven, as many believe, or how could His words be true--"I am not yet ascended to my Father"? The spirit of Jesus slept in the tomb with His body, and did not wing its way to heaven, there to maintain a separate existence, and to look down upon the mourning disciples embalming the body from which it had taken flight. All that comprised the life and intelligence of Jesus remained with His body in the sepulcher; and when He came forth it was as a whole being; He did not have to summon His spirit from heaven. He had power to lay down His life and to take it up again (3SP 203, 204). {5BC 1150.6}

Here's another quote:

Arnold,

Can't get much clearer than that quote, which tells us very clearly that "divinity did not die."

With this quote, where is the worthy sacrifice? This clearly suggests that God's Son didn't die, only the Son of man...? Is that a worthy sacrifice unless the Son of God lay down his divine life?

Assuming the statement is correct, then we have to consider a couple of options.

1) Christ's humanity was worth more than Adam's unfallen humanity.

2) The "sacrifice" involved should not be limited to physical death.

3) A combination of the two.

4) Other options?

Here's something along the lines of this option:

Did you find anything in relation to the other options?

Yes, all the above. Jesus' merit is his human character, his worth his deity, thus spiritual. We used to teach that Jesus died as God's Son, and avoided the trinity doctrine since it tied Father and Son by an indivisible substance/essence so death could not separate them once the Son became mortal (ie. sinful) flesh: we taught one Godhead possessed by the Father and begotten in his literal Son, one substance in & of each rather than each and everyone in the one substance as per the trinity. Now we subscribe to the trinity, this worthy death of God's Son is prevented by the trinity's "indivisible" substance, and we say Jesus didn't die as God.

This is the trinity's meaning & operation, is it not.

"Divinity" in this quote may well refer to the Godhead itself which God and Christ have each possessed, as has the Spirit, and EGW isn't referring just to Jesus' personal deity. Afterall, Adventism at that time taught Jesus' death involved his deity dying with his humanity: yes, his Father raised him the 3rd day, and Jesus' power to take up his life again meant he'd earned his resurrection but God his Father had to exercise that authority since Jesus had laid off his divine authority to become a man.

I haven't gotten to it yet, but there's some stuff in DA about #2.

I disagree. He obviously didn't lay off His divine authority, for He forgave sins. He laid down His power until His work for the redemption of man was completed. But at this point it had already been completed. The Desire of Ages is very clear about what happened:

"When the voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ's tomb, saying, Thy Father calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself. Now was proved the truth of His words, 'I lay down My life, that I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.' Now was fulfilled the prophecy He had spoken to the priests and rulers, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' John 10:17, 18; 2:19. Over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, Christ had proclaimed in triumph, 'I am the resurrection, and the life.' These words could be spoken only by the Deity. All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are dependent recipients of the life of God. From the highest seraph to the humblest animate being, all are replenished from the Source of life. Only He who is one with God could say, I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death." {DA 785.2,3}

It was Christ who raised His own body.

Also:

"All that comprised the life and intelligence of Jesus remained with his body in the sepulcher; and when he came forth it was as a whole being; he did not have to summon his spirit from Heaven. He had power to lay down his life and to take it up again." {3SP 203.2}

Notice that the text doesn't say that the Father did not have to summon Christ's spirit, but that Christ did not have to summon His spirit from heaven.

About the point that the sacrifice involved should not be limited to physical death. Speaking about Gethsemane, Ellen White says:

"He came forth calm and serene. A heavenly peace rested upon His bloodstained face. He had borne that which no human being could ever bear; for He had tasted the sufferings of death for every man" (DA 694).

This sounds like Jesus' saying He would raise His body Himself after three days.

Got to differ with your interpretation of EGW there.:-) All she is saying, again & again, is that Jesus is divine and that he rose to life in full possession of the Godhead which he had the power to lay down. Furthermore, only deity could claim that. "Life...in himself" is her phrase for self possessed immortality, which he has the power to lay down. That God has power over death is a given; that JESUS rose from the dead was proof more of man's salvation, justification, accomplished in Jesus' humanity, now glorified as a result of meritorious righteousness carved out of our fall sinful nature whose death penalty he'd suffered. He was triumphant over death AS A MAN, PTL!!

"Thy Father calls thee," is God resurrecting, calling back to life, his Son: nowhere does she say that Jesus called himself, raised himself, back to life; she just says he is still God, too: forever Immanuel.


This quote gets us back on the issue, for the mechanism (discussed above) of Christ rising to life again isn't vital to salvation, but God dying for us is.

This quote deals with the state of the dead, that "the whole being" of Christ was dead and buried, "life and intelligence": "spirit" in this context is the so-called 'immortal soul', in the same sentence as "whole being" as it is for contrast. We may well not agree on this interpretation, but that's what it looks like on the face of it.

As for spiritual aspects to Jesus' death, I agreed with that before...I would reiterate that the atonement for us included God giving his life in the person of his Son for us receive eternal life by that sacrifice. That's my point with this question of who & what (ie. deity) died for us and our sin. I'll turn now, as that first question is not easily agreed (shan't abandon the discussion!), to the moral type of humanity Jesus is credited with by the quarterly.

Ok...I haven't read the whole of this thread so I am sorry if I am repeating something that has already been agreed on here - but wasn't Jesus both fully God and fully man when He came to this Earth? And didn't He die the Second death on our behalf? If both of these are true (and I doubt there be much disagreement on these issues) then how can one then divide up and say that He didn't die as God? Since to die the second death is to pay the ultimate penalty:



Therefore wouldn't both scripture and logic dictate that for Jesus to be fully dead He MUST die as both a human and as God? Otherwise those sceptics who say that He wasn't dead in the tomb, only unconcious, would have their point proved and be entirely correct! And thereby Christ is not raised (Because He did not fully Die) This also does not negate the Ellen White quotes that have been quoted, nor does it negate the scripture of "I lay down My life, that I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Rather it makes this Fact about Jesus even more wonderful that He could fully die and yet "Take it again."

At the very least, do we all agree that divinity did not die?

What does "divinity" mean here?...since Adventism at the time of this statement taught the death of the Son of God on the cross which is even today a non-trinitarian teaching (check my post #104904, 19/11), what does she mean by this? There's no simple answer...

What of your point that Christ's sacrifice must be of more value than Adam before he sinned? You weren't referring to God's divine Son for this value?

Colin is saying that the divinity that did not die was the divinity of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and Debbie seems to agree with him, while we are saying that the divinity that did not die was His own divinity. So it seems to me that all are not in agreement about this.

I disagree here too. Dying the second death is dying under the wrath of God. The fact that both body and soul are consumed is a consequence of this for the sinner. However, Christ wasn't consumed, neither in His body nor in His soul, for He was without sin:

"Against every evildoer God's law utters condemnation. He may disregard that voice, he may seek to drown its warning, but in vain. It follows him. It makes itself heard. It destroys his peace. If unheeded, it pursues him to the grave. It bears witness against him at the judgement. A quenchless fire, it consumes at last soul and body." {Ed 144.5}

"[Christ was] the only One who could bear the strokes in behalf of the sinner and because of His innocence not be consumed." {HP 42.4}

For a discussion what kind of death Jesus suffered, click here

Yes, this is a point of discussion...On the 2nd death, Ps 22 says that he was not to see corruption in the grave, while Heb 2:9 says that he "tasted death for every man", so he actually bore our guilt of eternal separation from his Father and trusted in God by faith alone in what he had studied and knew of God in his righteous experience: else he wouldn't be Saviour of the world.

I went back to the Quarterly, and this clause

brings another question: how does God, could God, thus incarnated in Christ, save us unless Christ as God actually died for our sins? How is a human death sufficient, if "only God could save us"?

"Son of God" also applies to humanity. See Luke 3:38, when it was applied to Adam. And applying the Bible concept of being a son of God, I think we can safely say that this refers to unfallen Adam.

Therefore, even if only Christ's humanity died, it is still true that the "Son of God" died.


This would fall under option #2, that "sacrifice" is not limited to death. And it could refer to either humanity or divinity.

That does qualify as disagreement.

But I don't see why EGW would say, in the middle of describing what Jesus did, that the Father and Holy Spirit did not die. It seems foreign to the context.

Did you check out the latest sermon I posted? I brought up one reason why God had to come down, aside from the standard reasons.

Click The Serpent and the Seed to check it out.

As I see it, the difference between the first death and the second is just that, in the latter case, the separation from God precedes the cessation of life. So, the suffering resulting from this separation is the essence of the second death. That's why Ellen White says:

"I wish I could present the subject as it seems to me. Justice demanded the sufferings of a man. Christ, equal with God, gave the sufferings of a God. He needed no atonement. His suffering was not for any sin he had committed; it was for man--all for man; and his free pardon is accessible to all. The suffering of Christ was in correspondence with his spotless purity; his depth of agony, proportionate to the dignity and grandeur of his character. Never can we comprehend the intense anguish of the spotless Lamb of God, until we realize how deep is the pit from which we have been rescued, how grievous is the sin of which mankind is guilty, and by faith grasp the full and entire pardon." {RH, September 21, 1886 par. 5}

I completely agree.

I've managed to check with the lesson author, and his comments to me differ somewhat with this quote from the lesson, which was indeed edited by the committee chaired by Clifford Goldstein after it was originally drafted.

This quote states that the Saviour's humanity is unlike those he has saved:
This point is emphasised by the next sentence:
That appears to say that Jesus took the nature of sinless or unfallen Adam, but it is clear that our church teaching is neither that nor fallen Adam's nature: "sinful but without sin," meaning physically but not morally weak, in the flesh. The clear impression remains that whatever that second sentence means, it's different to any other human ever. I assume he is unlike us in terms of perfect obedience, as the first sentence I quoted at the top relates.

This is the sight and sound of the new theology view of Christ's humanity, dating from just after WW2. It was conceded at last year's 50th anniversary weekend for Questions on Doctrine that this is new theology, compared to what is the church's original position. A call for better cross party understanding was made last year, and that is what I did with the lesson author this week. He, Angel M. Rodriguez, was at least agreeing with the original church position, so there's a good prospect.



This sounds basically correct compared to the language of the Quarterly, coming from the Director of the Biblical Research Institute, who wrote the lesson.

Therefore Christ Death was the second death right?

I agree with this. Jesus was separated from God, and His purity made the pain of separation very intense. (In contrast, we - impure sinners - are used to separation from God, and don't mind it very much.) That's why I believe Jesus suffered the 2nd death, which was made more painful by his spotless purity and constant one-ness with God.

Is it? When the Trinitarian doctrine holds them to be one indivisable substance - therefore trinitarian doctrine would conclude that for one to die as God all would die? Ellen White her is affirming a non-trinitarian stance and affirming that though ONE MEMBER of the Godhead died all did not!

How is this a non-trinitarian stance?

I agree. Jesus took neither fallen nor unfallen Adam's nature.


If we can find one who is "fallen but not corrupted" that would only be the 2nd one in the history of man.

I'm confused.....

What nature did Abraham have then? and what nature did Christ have if it was neither Fallen nor unfallen?

Nice try, but inadmissable: there are indeed several types of sons of God in the Bible - created angels (and one son per created planet), adopted sons (& daughters) of the redeemed (rather famously...), and the one and only - yes, unique among the other sons - begotten Son, who alone is worthy...of worship and atoning for his fallen creatures.

Only God himself is worthy to die for us...oh, but we don't officially believe God died for us. Oh well:(


Thanks for that point, but personal dedication in service of his Father by God's Son himself isn't synonymous with the worth of divine life given for the fallen, is it.

To understand why this is non-trinitarian one must understand what the pioneers objected to in Trinitarianism, and it is thus:

How do you view the following quote, Colin? It's still more forceful than the other one:

"When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible." {5BC 1113.2}

It is. More below.


Does it? Do you have a quote from an authoritative, definitive Trinitarian source for that assertion? Personally, I don't know any authoritative, definitive Trinitarian source to ask.


Let's look at the context.

Anyone can read the entire article here: The Risen Saviour. It's only 9 paragraphs long.

There is nothing in there like "Jesus died while the Father and Spirit did not die." What we find there is the affirmation that Jesus is immortal (we can discuss what that word means) and that He has the right to "quicken whom He will." It is an article on the life that Jesus has.

Let's go back to the first paragraph of that article, the immediate context of the statement in question, and let's put in [Jesus] and [Father and Spirit] where you claim she meant them to be. (But I won't take time to fix grammar.)

"[Jesus] am the resurrection, and the life." [Jesus] who had said, "[Jesus] lay down [Jesus] life, that [Jesus] might take it again," came forth from the grave to life that was in [Jesus]. [Jesus] died: [Father and Spirit] did not die. In [Jesus'] divinity, [Jesus] possessed the power to break the bonds of death. [Jesus] declares that [Jesus] has life in [Jesus] to quicken whom [Jesus] will. {YI, August 4, 1898 par. 1}

Yes, it is foreign to the context. It is not much more of a stretch to claim that what EGW meant to assert was that Jesus died, but your pet chicken did not die.

So, Arnold, how do you reconcile "sinful but without sin" with Greek "sarx" of Rom 8:3, which means typical, sinful & degenerate human nature?

Also, is Bro. Rodriguez' inclusion of our fallen nature for Jesus a surprise for you, or does his guidance perhaps not hold any weight?


What do you think of her reference to Jesus "fallen and degenerate" human nature, rendering "corrupted" indeed a matter depending on choice rather than nature?

Excellent quote.

Some good points here...



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

She's insisting that deity is immortal, and cannot indeed die on its own: "sink and die," expresses weakening into mortality. It is tantamount to impossible for God to die, but, since Christ's humanity was mortal it was possible for him to die at all, and John 5:26 means that God's Son is able to give up and give away his eternal life, having been given it in the first place - Ellen White is emphatic that Jesus gives us of his eternal life. Thus, contrary to what is misstated regularly of late in the SS Quarterly, the Father could not have "equally" come instead of the Son, for he dwells in light unapproachable, etc., while the Son is the Godhead revealed to man, as EGW writes.

The Bible teaches that one worthy of the law must die to atone for sinners, "for if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son,..." God's Son dying is a mystery, but so is the incarnation: I believe it, as it is written.

Yes, Christ's humanity was mortal. Was His divinity mortal?
The quote explicitly says, "When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died." This statement would be completely out of place if both natures had died.

Colin,

Why are you not accepting such plainly worded quotes?

Yes, Jesus our great God and Saviour, powerful to save, give eternal life, lay it down and take it again - it is infinite, after all! In Jesus life work as Messiah he lived, gave and died for us: That involves him dying for sin and sinners, while his Father and Spirit directly guided and strengthened him in his human suffering of obedience: that he died directly relates to their existence, for salvation is by "the death of [God's] Son" (Rom 5:10), and his death doesn't actually affect the life of the Godhead possessed by the Father and the Spirit, who were yet very involved in Christ's death.

This survival of God at the death of his Son isn't permitted by the indivisible essence of the trinity doctrine - under which teaching the trinity would die with Christ should God actually die in Christ's humanity. Thus, Jesus task as Saviour doesn't actually endanger the life of God in the death of his Son as EGW emphasised, in contrast to essential trinitarianism whose "one God" of indivisible substance cannot endure the separation of God's Son's death; I would say today we subscribe to this principle, despite our variation on trinitarianism, with our "one God,..." having the same wording as strict trinitarians. Her statement smoothly gives the bigger picture without breaking stride, as is her inspired style. She's clarifying she doesn't believe in trinitarian limits, which rather threaten the atonement, as her husband his colleagues wrote.

Her whole literature must be examined for her actual teaching.

At the moment I would simply refer to Rom 5:10
Also, since I understand the controversy then and now over the trinity doctrine in our church, the Bible continues to be the "greater light", leaving her to be interpreted according to the Biblical and her own context.

I appreciate I look mad, but I can only otherwise refer you to the website I have found most informative on this trinity background: http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk It is much easier to read than my posts, tooooo

No, divinity is immortal, but what does "lay my life down" mean? God dying for us because of our sin is a mystery, but what does that statement by Jesus mean??

Colin,

The Bible is not the greater light. The greater light is Christ Jesus. The "greater light of the Bible" is Jesus. He it was He who said, "Search the scriptures...and they are they which testify of me." John chapter one is clear that Jesus is THE LIGHT "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

This statement is an interesting one...


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

While what you say is true, that article is not talking about that. To make it say what you wish it said is putting words into EGW's mouth.


You seem to be arguing against someone who is not here. You and DebbieB seem to have something against these Trinitarians and their alleged doctrines. But the current point of contention is whether or not Jesus' divinity died. Some of us believe EGW taught that it did not.

1) You seem to have missed the verse I referenced, saying that Adam, who was fully human and only human, was also the son of God.

2) Your implication that the "greater light" of the Bible will fix the, I suppose, darkness of EGW is disturbing.

Didn't unfallen Adam have "sarx" as well?

In any case, Rom 8:3 does not say Jesus came in sinful flesh. It says He came in the "homoioma" of sinful flesh. Had Paul intended to say that He came in sinful flesh, he would have said just that. But he didn't.

Fallen, but not corrupted is the right way to think about it.


It is neither surprising nor wrong. But he did not say Jesus came in "our fallen nature." He said, "The question concerning the human nature of Jesus is not whether He was a sinner or not but whether He took a fallen human nature without being or becoming a sinner." Fallen, yes, but not corrupted.

As for his guidance in spiritual matters, it holds as much weight with me as Goldstein or Priebe or Adams or Kirkpatrick. They all have to go through the law and the testimony. They may be right, but the could also be wrong.


The immediate quote suggests that she believed corruption to be a possible constituent of one's nature. That Jesus did not have that constituent, while the rest of us do, is often overlooked by the post-fall camp.

Yes, His humanity was fallen and degenerated. But I do not believe it was morally damaged in any way. If you can find an inspired text for that, I'd like to see it. (There's one I can think of, but I won't say where. )

Let's consider briefly what happened to Adam when he fell. Did his transgression create physical, intellectual, and moral imperfection in him? I say yes on all three counts.

But Jesus was morally perfect. Therefore, He was not like Adam after the Fall. And I would guess that everybody reading this is also like Adam after the Fall, imperfect in all three aspects.

Of course, pre-fall Adam was perfect in all three aspects. But Jesus was damaged physically, and probably intellectually also. So He was not like pre-fall Adam.

Therefore, I agree with the statement from the lesson: No other human being has been, is, or will be exactly like Him.

Not the "sarx" of the time that 1 John was written.



This argument is easily disproved. In Phil. 2 we read:



By the same logic you are suggesting, if Paul had intended to say Christ was a man, he would have said just that. But he didn't.

The word "Homoioma" means "like," not "different from." A better argument is that Paul said "likeness of sinful flesh," to indicate that while Christ took flesh like ours, Christ was not exactly like us, just like although Christ was made in the "likeness of men," He was not exactly like other men. How was He different?

In the language of Ellen White, He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. That's different! None of us has a sinless nature upon which to take a sinful nature. That being said, that nature, or flesh, which He took, it "like" our nature, or "flesh."



How about "fallen, but not defiled"? Would that be the way to think of it. Or "fallen, but not degraded."?





I can understand Rodriguez, Goldstien, Priebe and any other contemporary of ours not carrying weight, but I don't understand how the contemporaries of Ellen White would have no weight. For example, S. N. Haskell read the following from "The Desire of Ages,"



Haskell then said:



In regards to W. W. Prescott's sermon, "The Word Made Flesh" (a sermon regarding Christ's taking the nature of Adam after the fall) Ellen White wrote:



This sermon was from beginning to end a post-lapsarian sermon! This was deemed "truth," "separated from error."



This isn't relevant. One could also say, "But Jesus was God. Therefore, He was not like Adam after the Fall."

Our flesh is not a matter of morality.



Christ took the same flesh we have, but never responded to the temptations of the flesh; thus He was morally perfect. He was unlike Adam after the fall in terms of His performance, but not in terms of His flesh, or nature.





Everybody agrees with this.

That's where the Christology of many postlapsarians falls so far short of present truth. You guys speak of "nature" in only its amoral aspects, then claim that Jesus took such a "nature."

I can't think of anyone who does not agree that Jesus' human nature was like ours in its amoral aspects, even identical. You are defending an undisputed, and I would say irrelevant, point. You place so much emphasis and expend so much energy on that which "is not a matter of morality." That's probably why Ralph Larson's son can tell a room full of postlapsarians to "get a life."

In contrast, others, such as myself and EGW, sometimes speak of "nature" in terms which include moral aspects. In my case, that's the overwhelming majority of the time. That's why I spend so much time and effort, not in telling people how much we are like Jesus, but telling them that we need to get on the ball because we are NOT like Jesus.

The only reason I spend any time talking about Jesus' human nature is because of its moral implications. If it is amoral, as you claim it is, then there is no reason to spend any significant "theological" time on the topic.

Neither does it mean "identical" is my conclusion based on Paul's use of homoioma.

How is this different from what I have been saying? I must not be expressing myself very well.


Is this "sinless nature" a human nature, upon which He took our sinful human nature, giving Him two human natures? That would be different alright. Very different.


Your suggested modifications are obviously wrong, as your quote points out. That's why I said "fallen, but not corrupted" is the right way to think about it. Your suggestions are the wrong way to think about it. Why you would even suggest them is beyond me, except for the purpose of setting up a straw man.

BTW, does anyone have any reports from yesterday's SS discussions? Anything new come up?

As we didn't have church yesterday on account of a major snowstorm, we missed out on any discussion about any of this, however, I trust others here can share what happened in their respective Sabbath School discussions.

Your several posts are a little jumbled up, asygo and Tom, with right bits, wrong bits, and some poetic licence!

Jesus' humanity was sinful, defiled and degenerate, but his mind was "righteous", indwelled by his Father's Spirit from birth - an indwelling from such an age remaining a mystery equal to the incarnation and not for us to fathom.

What, asygo, of that 7 SDABC 926 quote by Tom, originally in manuscript 141, 1901, and cited in "Touched With Our Feelings"? Is it not perfectly unambiguous on the immoral state Jesus' humanity?

Then there's this

Jean Zurcher's book (mentioned above) may well have ended the debate proper on this, so I don't need to say much more here, but you appear to think it's not over, or just needs better wording?

As for "not currupted", this is a matter of choice, as that letter without context, to Baker, points out that corruption "did not rest on him". Perhaps Tom was showing how "defiled" and "degraded" are clearly understood as descriptions of a state of morality, whereas "corruption" is known as a matter of choice: the wrong context changes meaning.

We now have a 3rd entrant.

Tom: Jesus' humanity was amoral.
Arnold: Jesus' humanity was moral.
Colin: Jesus' humanity was immoral.

I'd sooner go with Tom's assertion of amorality than with the idea that Jesus was immoral in any way, aside from our immorality that was imputed to Him as the Lamb.

Immoral has the same meaning as sinful, not so: I prefer sinful nature - we exist in a state of sinfulness, but was resorting to immoral to emphasise the point while you two were using the root word - won't use it again due to how it confuses you who appear to hold to the new theology.

What of that quote???...

I was mistaken: She does not remove the worthy sacrifice, for she merely confirms that indeed divinity is immortal...while she also believed that the Son of God himself died.

Here is a most basic statement regarding the pre-incarnate Christ, the Son of God, and what he did - he died...


This simple statement she clarified in the same letter

She is distinguishing divine nature from the divine Son, and describing - nearly explaining! - how God's own divine Son managed to offer himself as the atoning sacrifice for sinners. I hadn't got this clear in my own head last week, but there it is!

Here is another quote, clear as day


The divine nature, the Godhead, is immortal, but "God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" facilitated the death of his Son, since God alone could save and only the Son of the Most High did save us by dying for us.

Oh, I really ought to include this one, for it says it so well.

We prefer to be called "those who have learned a thing or two over the past century and a half" as opposed to those who have remained stagnant in "old error," or more often, "erroneous ideas of what the old theology really was."

It is better to stick to theology, as mud-slinging is an old skill I'd rather not dredge up.

NO ANSWER???

Here's a reminder

As for your opinion of yourself, you're welcome to it, but you remain a new school of thought...theological thought.

Written in the 20th century, not her precise wording, but you reckon Francis Nicol, Kenneth Wood and Herbert Douglass got it wrong, or just the no-called Independent Ministries?

I can now refer you to my latest post, for her statements that the Son of God himself died while divine nature did not. That's why my point above here has a footing, though not expressed directly here.


These trinitarian allegations? - with pleasure...: please read it all on the trinity thread where I'm posting introductory details.


Yes, Jesus' deity didn't die, by the pre-existent Son of God did - he himself died as a man, which is the point that DebbieB made earlier: two natures in one Man, so that two personages, Son of God and Son of man, lived and died together as one Man.

What does this mean to you? What I believe is that Christ's divinity remained in the tomb, unconscious - but not dead. In much the same way as when Christ was sleeping.

Christ's divinity didn't die - that's all I seek to express, and it may well be as you described it. Christ, the Son of God, died, since only God could save us from death, and that's what he did and how he did it. He who came from heaven, God with us, died for us by having taken on humanity.

One must simply differentiate between Christ as God and his deity, for that is how EGW sorts it out in talking of his sacrifice as God.

Of all the works I have read, both from conservative and liberal, inspired and uninspired, you are the only one I have seen to say that Jesus was immoral in any way. You are unique, AFAIK.

Unless you can find some quote in the Bible or SOP that say Jesus was immoral, I must conclude that you have strayed from His teaching in our past.

Amen! Here are a few more pointed quotes:

In your letter in regard to the temptations of Christ, you say: "If He was One with God He could not fall." . . . The point you inquire of me is, In our Lord's great scene of conflict in the wilderness, apparently under the power of Satan and his angels, was He capable, in His human nature, of yielding to these temptations? {3SM 129.2}

I will try to answer this important question: As God He could not be tempted: but as a man He could be tempted, and that strongly, and could yield to the temptations. His human nature must pass through the same test and trial Adam and Eve passed through. His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own. He was passing over the ground where Adam fell. He was now where, if He endured the test and trial in behalf of the fallen race, He would redeem Adam's disgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity. {3SM 129.3}

Christ's perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ. As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. He breathed the very air man must breathe. He trod our earth as man. He had reason, conscience, memory, will, and affections of the human soul which was united with His divine nature. {16MR 181.4}

Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. His finite nature was pure and spotless, but the divine nature that led Him to say to Philip, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" also, was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties. {16MR 182.1}

But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. {16MR 182.2}

The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings. {16MR 182.3}

PS - What did Ellen mean when she wrote (quoted above) - ". . . we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man."

You've ignored my last post: Jesus' flesh was inclined to sin, therefore sinful, so basically immoral, except he never accepted it...so save your exasperation and deal with that SOP quote.

The following quote explains just how "identical" Jesus was like us and how we are like Him. Jesus became like us to prove it is possible for us to be like Him.

We are ever to be thankful that Jesus has proved to us by actual facts that man can keep the commandments of God, giving contradiction to Satan's falsehood that man cannot keep them. The Great Teacher came to our world to stand at the head of humanity, to thus elevate and sanctify humanity by His holy obedience to all of God's requirements showing it is possible to obey all the commandments of God. He has demonstrated that a lifelong obedience is possible. Thus He gives chosen, representative men to the world, as the Father gave the Son, to exemplify in their life the life of Jesus Christ. {3SM 139.2}

We need not place the obedience of Christ by itself as something for which He was particularly adapted, by His particular divine nature, for He stood before God as man's representative and tempted as man's substitute and surety. If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter. The work of Christ was to take from the claims of Satan his control of man, and He could do this only in the way that He came--a man, tempted as a man, rendering the obedience of a man. . . . {3SM 139.3}

Bear in mind that Christ's overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. His imputed grace and power He gives to all who receive Him by faith. The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. {3SM 139.4}

Man cannot overcome Satan's temptations without divine power to combine with His instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ, He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God's Holy Law, and in this way He is our example. {3SM 140.1}

I never said Jesus' humanity was amoral. I would say it was moral. Colin, in saying Christ's humanity was immoral was clearly referring to Christ's assumed sinful nature, which is using the term "humanity" differently that Ellen White did, but Colin's intent is easy to discern.

Colin did not say Jesus was immoral. The human nature which Christ assumed is called our "sinful nature." It's also called human nature, "degraded and defiled by sin." Obviously this is what Colin is talking about. For Christ to be immoral, He would have had to do something immoral, and Colin has not in the least suggested this.

Colin mentioned Zurcher's book a couple of times. It's an excellent book. Have you read it?

Tom,

Colin said, "Jesus' flesh was inclined to sin, therefore sinful, so basically immoral..." I think I'll take his word over yours. I assume he knows better what he's thinking.

No, I haven't read Zurcher's book. I haven't been able to find it. But I hear it is detailed account of what SDAs believed. But since I'm neither a conservative nor an apologist, I have lost interest in it. Rather than discovering or defending what we used to believe, I prefer discovering and disseminating what we should believe. And I search for that in authoritative sources.

Arnold, you may take Tom's word for what I wrote, as I approve of it.

Also, your search in authoritative sources for what we should believe is doomed to frustration. Zurcher is/was (I fear he has passed away) as official as Arnold Wallenkampf - both members of the GC BRI, Zurcher at the Euro-Africa Division in Bern. That he could document a change in our theology, confirmed by Kenneth Wood - who wrote the foreword of the English translation of the French, which change altered our soteriology, renders our authoritative sources subject to comparison with what went before 1980, 1950...

Or do you look at authoritative going back to 1846?...Is EGW authoritative? - that quote?...

How about simply being interested in investigating the truth? The truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

Why should one need to be a conservative or an apologist to be interested in what SDAs believed? Ellen White was an SDA! It's just not intellectually viable to ignore the testimony of history when investigating truth.

Ellen White, for example, endorsed a post-lapsarian sermon as "truth separated from error." This is part of the historical record.

One can't simply cherry pick one's favorite quotes. Both sides of any disagreement tend to be guilty of this. Investigating the historical context in which debated statements were made can resolve the controversy. Everyone agrees Ellen White did not contradict herself. How do we explain, if not by considering the historical context, the seeming contradictions in such sources as the Baker letter and quotes like the one Colin has been asking you about:



Or this well-known one:



What are the results shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors? Adultery, prostitution, murder; every sort of vice and sin. This was the heredity which Christ accepted, like all the rest of us. Ellen White's reasoning here is nearly identical to Waggoner's in the 1901 GCB where he argued against the teaching of the Holy Flesh.

Ellen White's strongest statements regarding the human nature of Christ were in the context of arguing against the Holy Flesh movement. For example, she wrote, in this context, that Christ's human nature was "degraded and defiled by sin."

An interesting thing to note in regards to the Holy Flesh heresy is how the SDA's of the time chose to meet it. As S. N. Haskell characterized the teaching:



Now if someone like you, for example, were to meet this error, you would simply point out that it was wrong because we keep our sinful natures until Christ's return. You wouldn't argue that the Holy Flesh people were wrong because Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. But this is how the SDA's of the time argued, including Ellen White!

That Ellen White was a part of this is very significant. Ellen White stated the following:



Her integrity would be zilch if she believed the argument of S. N. Haskell's and the others meeting the Holy Flesh ideas were unsound, which is exactly what the position you are taking in regards to her teachings regarding Christ's human nature would require.

Obviously, you have no idea what my position is, since I fully agree with Haskell's statement. You'd be better off speaking for others.

I could have sworn that I mentioned somewhere that Jesus had a fallen nature....

I could have sworn that I mentioned somewhere that if we are speaking of "nature" in the amoral postlapsarian sense, that Christ's was the same as ours....

You probably missed them.

I remember those statements - for most of those you were replying to me! - not just Tom.

Have only one question: what is the "amoral postlapsarian" view of human nature? - it's not an angle on sinful humanity I'm familiar with! I'm aware you support the 1980 voted belief, especially its published explanation; "fallen humanity" for you isn't our fallen nature since it's morally strong: is that Biblical? - for it isn't a founding SDA belief, though - 4u - it needn't be...but is it Biblical: it is a modern, alternative, as admitted last year, so how is it Adventist at all really, or worth anything?

Arnold, you refer to post-lapsarians as "you guys." Well, S. N. Haskell was one of "us guys."

I can't think of anything S. N. Haskell wrote on the subject that I would disagree with. I would say the same thing in regards to W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. Do you agree with these guys?

From everything you've written, you strike me as a typical pre-lapsarian. I apologize if I've misunderstood you, but does your position differ from Stephen Wallace, for example? Or Woodrow Whidden?

hello gentlemen.

for me, it seems to be how one reads those statements. when i read them by myself, i didnt read, or "see" what some seem to read/"see" them say.

im not sure how haskells quote is being read but the point he seems to be making is that the holy flesh people believed we can, somehow, on this side of eternity have "holy flesh" as well as a holy mind. hes just showing the reasoning leading up to the wrong conclusion.

i know what im trying to say but i dont know if i got that point across.

You will have to ask Tom, as I won't presume to explain a belief which I do not hold, or even understand. Read post #105007 in this thread for starters.


Well, that makes one of us, since I didn't know I support it! You're way ahead of me already, knowing more about my beliefs than I do.


"Moral perfection is required of all." I do believe that Jesus met that requirement from birth to death.

Whether or not that is a Biblical requirement is a long and tiresome debate that is a settled fact for those who believe EGW. That's why I regard as error any assertion that Jesus was morally imperfect in any way.


You are correct there. Here's an SDA belief that trumps most everything else:


At issue, as far as I'm concerned, is Christ's moral perfection. And closely tied to that is the moral perfection that is available to us through His. Is that Biblical? Many do not think so. But I believe that it is fundamental to the Gospel.

So if someone says Christ is immoral, I say that is wrong.

If someone wants to discuss something that has nothing to do with morality, I say that is irrelevant.

I don't know. I don't think those guys spent a whole lot of time wrestling over things that are "not a matter of morality," as modern postlapsarians do.

Anyway, please give a short definition of postlapsarian and prelapsarian, then I'll tell you if I agree with your assessment of me, Wallace, and Whidden. By my definition, and my understanding of what they teach, we are not prelapsarian. And Jones was not postlapsarian, as he made a very critical distinction between Jesus and post-fall Adam.

Christ's CHARACTER is the evidence of his "moral perfection"; "the mind of Christ", ie. the Holy Spirit in his spiritual, human life, is the basis of that character display. His fallen humanity was sinful, degraded, defiled, inclined to sin and captive to that inclination - depraved, but for the power of the Spirit through the "faith of Jesus" such that "the just requirements of the law were fulfilled" in him, and compatible with our spiritual set up to facilitate Rom 8:4 in our lives. Only by taking the sinful first Adam's place could he be Second Adam of our sinful race to redeem & restore us to God's glory in this life & forever more.

You don't think Jesus could produce a perfectly righteous character by taking a human nature defiled and infected by sin - he couldn't avoid corrupting it and himself had he taken exactly what we as Christians naturally & spiritually have - sinful flesh and the power of God?

Yes, you and eg. Whidden are neither, nor, for "sinful but without sin" is a hybrid which sadly is unknown ro the Bible! Jones famously insisted on Jesus' sinful flesh "bu don't drag his mind into it!" he said.

Why do you think those who defend & teach the original Adventist position on Christ's humanity don't study "matters of morality" in relation o it? - surely Tom's comment earlier hasn't confused you totally on our position?

Is that not part of our human nature - our character? If the character is removed from a man, is he still a man?

Is not morals a crucial element of what it means to be human? Can one be said to have "human nature" if his moral aspects are removed? Without the moral nature, what is man but a hairless beast?


Inclined to sin. Much can be said there, but I'll leave that for another time.

Let's look at your assertion that Christ's fallen humanity was depraved, as we all know fallen Adam's humanity was depraved.

From the 1828 Webster's dictionary, which was close enough to EGW's time to still have the same meaning for her:
Note the moral implications of depravity.

Some more. SOP this time:
Isn't selfishness a moral quality? Furthermore, was Jesus selfish, as the rest of depraved humanity is by nature? Did He have a nature that was evil and incapable of bringing forth that which is good?


Can a napkin permeated by water avoid being wet? What if it was very careful? What if it was more powerful?

You question suggests the belief that sin is a matter of one's actions. Though one can certainly sin through actions, sin runs much deeper than that. At its core, sin is a moral issue.

That is what Jesus came to solve. When man fell, his greatest need was not power, but propitiation. God's power does much, but it is of no consequence without His propitiation.

In my previous post I listed redemption ahead of restoration deliberately because we have to die to self & sin before we can harness the power of God for righteousness.

Did Jesus not die daily to self and his assumed, sinful nature, as he gave example for us to die daily?

I listed depraved because that is humanity without the power of God - captive to its own sinfulness: with the power of agape our sinfulness is defeated by choice. We sin because we're sinful, not because we're sinners! The Bible states Jesus took the nature of Abraham & David: the small fry of unintentional sins and that sort of issue is not our concern with Jesus, who was tempted ''in all points'' like we are, and his resounding victory over our sinfulness is ours for the asking.

The investigative judgement is all about getting into our lives every bit of his righteous experience that he wants us to have: Christian perfection, which he is! - which we are to reflect, the glory of God the Father.

Both our redemption & our restoration depend on the humanity of Christ being correct as on his divine Sonship being real rather than contrived by his incarnation.

Strange how we appear to want the same end of the Gospel but don't quite agree on the means! We'll see where this thread goes, eh.

Jones not a postlapsarian? Because he made a very critical distinction between Jesus and post-fall Adam? You're the first person I've come across to suggest that Jones was not a postlapsarian. I think you may be unique in this!

All postlapsarians make critical distinctions between Jesus and post-fall Adam. For example, Adam was human. Jesus was divine. Also Adam committed sin. Jesus never sinned.



Is this what you had in mind? If so, I can't think of any postlapsarian who wouldn't agree with this. If you had something else in mind, please quote it.

To answer your question, a postlapsarian is one who believes that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. When Adam sinned, his nature changed, and that nature was passed by heredity to his descendants. Christ took this nature.

Prelapsarians don't believe this. They believe they Christ took only innocent infirmities of Adam, such as becoming hungry or tired.

A key point of difference has to do with whether Christ could be tempted from within or not. Because of Adam's fallen nature, we all have temptations that originate from within ourselves, tendencies passed onto us from our parents. These may or may not be cultivated, meaning that we may be tempted from within to do things even though we have never consented to do them.

Prelapsarians do not believe that Christ was tempted from within.

Postlapsarians empahsize that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, meaning that Christ had the same temptations of the flesh that we have (which do not imply actual participation in sin).

Prelapsarians dispute this, saying that Christ's temptations were greater than ours (for example, keeping His divinity under control), and that tempted in all points like us means tempted in similar categories of sin.

Here's how Waggoner put it:



The underlined portion is a typical postlapsarian emphasis.

Prelapsarians often say that if Christ had take our sinful nature, He would have needed a Savior Himself.

Prelapsarians often perceive that we incur guilt because of our sinful nature (which is a similar point to the previous sentence).

Prelapsarians often miscontrue what postlapsarians say, thinking the former are implying or saying that Jesus Christ was exactly like we are.

Just a quick clarification. This "nature" you speak of, does this exclude the mind?