So Jesus didn’t sin while He was a child (as opposed to John the Baptist) because He was “the Son of God”? Of course at this time He didn’t even know He was the Son of God, but if the position of Son of God gave Him a special power, then He had an advantage over John and over us, obviously.


Authority? Would Satan tempt you to “command” stones to be changed into bread? No, because you have no power in yourself to do it. You could “command” a thousand times and this wouldn’t happen. And since God would never answer a request which was in disharmony with His will (and this was of them), it would be useless for anyone to ask God to do this. Therefore, the temptation was no temptation at all, for Jesus knew both that He didn’t have the power to do it and that the Father would never answer such a request.

Green, I don't want to get into arguments of proving views or points. I don't have the time anymore and don't think it's healthy either.

I see it according to the emphasis scripture gives in regards to salvation. Jesus was our example. This emphasis is the born again experience that needs to be renewed daily.

Did you have a chance to listen to Pastor Liversidge yet? If not, then as a friend I would strongly advice you to do so. Maybe after listening it, you will understand the emphasis I'm talking about.

We have a duty to understand this gospel. I don't like to get into theology and these arguments because it clouds the purity of the message. It should be understood as simply as possible and that is through exposing ourselves to scriptures and claiming the indwelling of the mind of Christ in us. Then Christ will reveal the truth to us.

You ask why? Tom, if you can't even explain why a baby needs a Savior, then what is your basis for saying that the concept of original sin is wrong?

There are things that are not known to us. And I'm not here to prove Jesus had an advantage or disadvantage over us. To me, that's irrelevant. Jesus was definetly different than John the baptist or any of us because He never sinned from day 1 and he was the "son of God". All I know is what scripture says and that's enough for me.

First of all, we are people of little faith. Jesus said if our faith was as big as a mustard seed we could do all kind of stuff. So Satan don't need to tempt us in regards to authority, because we think we don't have any. However, with Jesus, Jesus knew he had authority plus being the "Son of God" and that's why Satan tempt Jesus with his authority because the rest Jesus didn't have. For sure, Jesus saw through the temptation. However, Jesus was quite hungry and it was still a temptation for Him because he had our bodies.

If Original Sin were true, it would cause a logical contradiction to the idea that Christ took our sinful nature. Statements like the following would be false:



And this:



It would also speak poorly of Ellen White's integrity if she really agreed with Donnell and Davis on the foundation of their argument, but allowed Haskel, Jones, Prescott and Waggoner to oppose it on the basis of unsound arguments, given she had expressed her opinion that the arguments with which we meet opposition should be wholly sound.

It would also not speak well of her ability to understand righteousness by faith, if she was unaware of the connection between one's position on Original Sin/Christ's taking our sinful nature and justification/sanctification. That she could endorse Jones, Waggoner and Prescott so enthusiastically and so often when they were wrong on this vital point would speak very poorly of her ability to discern truth. She would have been better off just endorsing Luther and forgetting about Jones and Waggoner.

She said almost nothing about babies, and when she spoke of babies she did so like treading on egg shells. She emphasized that we've received little revelation on these areas, so I do as well.

As to why babies need a Savior, I've suggested several reasons. One is that babies are a part of the "whole human race" that was restored to favor with God (1SM 343). Another is that babies have just as much a need for grace as the rest of humanity. Surely you'd agree that Original Sin is not the only reason we need grace. What would be the vehicle for receiving grace without a Savior? Even aside from a babies own need for grace, the fact that their parents need a Savior, and they need their parents, creates a dependency upon having a Savior.

Green, if you have to cite a private letter to try to make a case, it's not much of a case. Do you really think Ellen White would be giving private advice to Baker, whom no one knew, while simultaneously refrain from giving that same advice to the best known and leading workers of the church? The fact that she didn't address Prescott, Jones, Haskell and Waggoner on the points of the Baker letter is strong evidence that she agreed with them, because the Baker letter shows that if she didn't, she would have responded to their errors.

What does this have to do with whether or not Christ took our sinful nature? Regarding the phase of Christ's life you're wanting to delve into, we're told that how Christ did not sin is a mystery no explained to mortals.



Why not concentrate on that which has been clearly revealed, for example, that Christ took our sinful nature.

Tom, FYI I never cited any "Baker letter" nor ever heard of it until Elle mentioned this. I quoted from the SDA Bible Commentary, I believe it was.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Which is the Baker letter (That is, they were citing the Baker letter, which is what you quoted).

This was a private letter, of which the circumstances under which it was written we do not know. Ellen White told us if we wanted to know her thoughts on a matter to consult her published works. If we wish to know her thoughts on the nature of Christ, we should, above all, consult "The Desire of Ages."

I was a prelapsarian before reading that book.

Elle, you quoted Heb 2:17 and said it was an obligation for Jesus to come as one of us, and now you say that it's irrelevant if Christ had an advantage over us?


Elle, Moses parted the Red Sea, Elijah commanded fire to come down from heaven, and we have several other people mentioned in the hall of faith of Hebrews 11. But Satan doesn't tempt us to command any such thing because we know the power to do it is not in us. It's not authority which is involved here, but power.
About Jesus - He indeed had authority, and when He commanded Satan to leave, he left. But in the case of the stones more than authority was necessary - creative power was necessary. If He knew He didn't have creative power, I don't see how this could have been a temptation to Him.