Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,633
Members1,323
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
4 registered members (Karen Y, Daryl, dedication, 1 invisible),
3,342
guests, and 13
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108240
02/12/09 06:14 AM
02/12/09 06:14 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
First, I'd like to welcome Rosangela back. Tom, What, to you, does taking our sinful flesh exactly encompass? You took issue with Arnolds's "holistic" understanding of "nature" (i.e., the fact that it encompasses the physical, mental and moral aspects). Of course Christ took the physical and mental (intellectual) aspects of our nature, but He didn't take our morally deteriorated condition. And propensities of disobedience belong to the moral (spiritual) realm of our nature. Ok, let's assume that "nature" does mean what Arnold suggests, the holistic idea, encompassing the spiritual, mental and physical nature of man. Just to make sure we all realize that I didn't make this up: The nature of man is threefold, and the training enjoined by Solomon comprehends the right development of the physical, intellectual, and moral powers. {CG 39.1} And there's more quotes along that vein. Then the fact that Christ took our sinful nature would mean that Christ took a sinful spiritual, mental, and physical nature, wouldn't it? Yes, it would. So, continuing with the assumption that "nature" can be taken holistically, encompassing the spiritual, mental, and physical aspects of man, should we say that Jesus was sinful in these areas? In particular, did Jesus have a sinful spiritual/moral nature?
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: asygo]
#108244
02/12/09 03:31 PM
02/12/09 03:31 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
T:Then the fact that Christ took our sinful nature would mean that Christ took a sinful spiritual, mental, and physical nature, wouldn't it?
A:Yes, it would. So, continuing with the assumption that "nature" can be taken holistically, encompassing the spiritual, mental, and physical aspects of man, should we say that Jesus was sinful in these areas? Clearly not, right? Therefore when the SOP says that Christ took the nature of Adam the transgressor, fallen nature, sinful nature, etc., she must not have had the holistic idea in mind, right? In particular, did Jesus have a sinful spiritual/moral nature? Isn't this a red herring? I think the understanding of Christ's taking our nature is just what Haskell explained as he read from the Desire of Ages, which says that Christ took our nature. Haskell explained "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations." I don't think any of Ellen White or her contemporaries said that Christ had a fallen spiritual or moral nature. Everything I've read from Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, White, etc. is very careful to explain that while Christ took sinful flesh, including hereditary inclinations, the aspects you are referring to were not impacted. Isn't this what Jones' point was in saying, "Do not bring His mind into this?"
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: asygo]
#108259
02/12/09 11:44 PM
02/12/09 11:44 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
First, I'd like to welcome Rosangela back. Thanks, Arnold! I'm glad to be back. Strange things happen on this earth - long vacation periods can become tiresome.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108260
02/12/09 11:50 PM
02/12/09 11:50 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Everything I've read from Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, White, etc. is very careful to explain that while Christ took sinful flesh, including hereditary inclinations, the aspects you are referring to were not impacted. Three aspects - physical, intellectual and moral. As I see it, propensities of disobedience are clearly within the moral aspect.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Rosangela]
#108262
02/13/09 12:00 AM
02/13/09 12:00 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Everything I've read from Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, White, etc. is very careful to explain that while Christ took sinful flesh, including hereditary inclinations, the aspects you are referring to were not impacted.
Three aspects - physical, intellectual and moral. As I see it, propensities of disobedience are clearly within the moral aspect. I think those things which have to do with moral aspects and to us but not to Christ are not hereditary inclinations, such as Haskell spoke of, in reference to Christ's taking our nature.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108274
02/13/09 02:54 AM
02/13/09 02:54 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
T:Then the fact that Christ took our sinful nature would mean that Christ took a sinful spiritual, mental, and physical nature, wouldn't it?
A:Yes, it would. So, continuing with the assumption that "nature" can be taken holistically, encompassing the spiritual, mental, and physical aspects of man, should we say that Jesus was sinful in these areas? Clearly not, right? Therefore when the SOP says that Christ took the nature of Adam the transgressor, fallen nature, sinful nature, etc., she must not have had the holistic idea in mind, right? Right. But when the SOP says that we need a transformation of nature, she must have had the holistic idea in mind, right?
Last edited by asygo; 02/13/09 04:02 PM. Reason: typo
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: asygo]
#108277
02/13/09 03:50 AM
02/13/09 03:50 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Of course. Our sinful flesh cannot be transformed.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108289
02/13/09 01:37 PM
02/13/09 01:37 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
T: Everything I've read from Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, White, etc. is very careful to explain that while Christ took sinful flesh, including hereditary inclinations, the aspects you are referring to were not impacted.
R: Three aspects - physical, intellectual and moral. As I see it, propensities of disobedience are clearly within the moral aspect.
T: I think those things which have to do with moral aspects and to us but not to Christ are not hereditary inclinations, such as Haskell spoke of, in reference to Christ's taking our nature. But she says we are born with propensities of disobedience. Is this within the moral/spiritual realm of our nature or not?
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Rosangela]
#108291
02/13/09 02:51 PM
02/13/09 02:51 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Are you talking about the Baker letter? Or did you have something else in mind? If so, I'd like to see it.
Ellen White taught that Christ took our sinful nature, and that was understood to be "fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108293
02/13/09 03:07 PM
02/13/09 03:07 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
From W. W. Prescott:
Adam failed in his place, and by the offence of one many were made sinners. Jesus Christ gave Himself, not only for us, but to us, uniting Himself to the family, in order that He might take the place of the first Adam, and as head of the family win back what was lost by the first Adam. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is a representative righteousness, just as the sin of Adam was a representative sin, and Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, gathered to Himself the whole family.
But since the first Adam took his place, there has been a change, and humanity is sinful humanity. The power of righteousness has been lost. To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. He became, not a man, but He became flesh; He became human, and gathered all humanity unto Himself, embraced it in His own infinite mind, and stood as the representative of the whole human family.
Adam was tempted at the very first on the question of appetite. Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrous glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:11. He has come into the family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. Jesus Christ made the connection between God and man, that the divine spirit might rest upon humanity. He made the way for humanity.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|