Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,606
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108296
02/13/09 04:04 PM
02/13/09 04:04 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Are you talking about the Baker letter? Or did you have something else in mind? If so, I'd like to see it. Yes, the Baker letter: "Because of sin, his [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience." {13MR 18.1}
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108297
02/13/09 04:19 PM
02/13/09 04:19 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
Right. But when the SOP says that we need a transformation of nature, she must have had the holistic idea in mind, right? Of course. Our sinful flesh cannot be transformed. So, since when I think of "nature" it is primarily in terms of the holistic paradigm, the view in which the SOP says our "natures" must be transformed, when somebody asks me if Jesus had a sinful nature, unless "nature" is defined to exclude the spiritual/moral aspects of man, I should answer clearly and emphatically, "No!" Agreed?
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: Tom]
#108301
02/13/09 04:28 PM
02/13/09 04:28 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
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." If she was correct in what she wrote to Baker, those "hereditary inclinations" would include the "inherent propensities of disobedience" with which we are born. Anyway, here are some quotes about what children can get at birth: Children are born with the animal propensities largely developed, the parents' own stamp of character having been given to them. ... The sins of the parents will be visited upon their children, because the parents have given them the stamp of their own lustful propensities. {RH, September 19, 1899 par. 7}
Parents who indulge in excess of eating and drinking, or in the gratification of the animal propensities, transmit their corrupted blood and vitiated appetites to their children, who have less self-control and less power to resist temptation than the parents had. Many children die in infancy, while many more are ruined for time and eternity, in consequence of the sinful indulgences of the parents. {HR, February 1, 1880 par. 6}
Fathers transmit to their children their own irritable temper, polluted blood, and enfeebled physical, mental, and moral powers; and their own vitiated appetite, intensified, is reproduced in the children. {FPR, March 30, 1879 par. 10}
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: Tom]
#108303
02/13/09 04:46 PM
02/13/09 04:46 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
In particular, did Jesus have a sinful spiritual/moral nature? Isn't this a red herring? Far from being a red herring, this is the crux of my beef against postlapsarianism. Hence, when asked, "Did Jesus have a sinful nature," I always answer, No. Consider the nature of Adam after his fall. Did he have a sinful physical nature? Did he have a sinful spiritual/moral nature? I answer: Yes, yes. But when asked about Jesus, I answer: Yes, no. Therefore, some have labeled me as having the "hybrid" view. And some, who deal only with broad brush strokes ( who, I suppose, have not considered that pre-Fall Adam would get "no, no" for those questions) have labeled me as prelapsarian. In any case, if we're talking about physical nature, I believe Jesus had what Adam had after his fall. But if we are talking about nature in general, with no qualifications, they are not the same. 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?" Since human nature includes the spiritual/moral nature, and some would argue that this aspect is more definitive of what it means to be human as compared to one's physical nature, it was overzealous to say that "In His human nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you." If Jones had said, "In His physical nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you" then he would not have had to clarify the confusion about bringing Christ's mind into it, as the mind is an important part of human nature.
Last edited by asygo; 02/13/09 04:49 PM.
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]
#108304
02/13/09 04:51 PM
02/13/09 04:51 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom has posted many SOP passages which clearly teach Jesus was indeed born with the same sinful nature we are born with. Unlike us, though, Jesus never once acted out the unholy tendencies and clamorings that warred against Him. This is the same state of those who experience rebirth and walk in the Spirit and mind of the new man abiding in Jesus . The clamorings of fallen flesh cannot contaminate character while thus oriented. Once our "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character) is crucified we are no longer counted guilty in the eyes of God. Covered with the blood and righteousness of Christ, empowered to live sinlessly, maturing daily in the fruits of the Spirit - we stand before God and the Universe blameless, holy, undefiled, and perfect. In the same way, Jesus possessed sinful flesh nature without incurring condemnation or contamination of character.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#108309
02/13/09 05:42 PM
02/13/09 05:42 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
Did Jesus have an "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character)?
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: Mountain Man]
#108310
02/13/09 05:48 PM
02/13/09 05:48 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
MM,
Are the propensities of disobedience in the physical, intellectual or spiritual/moral aspect of our nature? According to the passage quoted by Arnold, "fathers transmit to their children their own ... enfeebled ... moral powers." Did Jesus have enfeebled moral powers?
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Rosangela]
#108312
02/13/09 06:01 PM
02/13/09 06:01 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
So, since when I think of "nature" it is primarily in terms of the holistic paradigm, the view in which the SOP says our "natures" must be transformed, when somebody asks me if Jesus had a sinful nature, unless "nature" is defined to exclude the spiritual/moral aspects of man, I should answer clearly and emphatically, "No!" Agreed? More or less. I would certainly agree a question like this should not be answered "yes," without clarification. However, I wouldn't answer it "no" either without clarification. Actually, the way you put it (that Jesus Christ had a sinful nature) is something I would address on the spot. If we say "had," that can give the impression that Jesus did something (like sin) to get that nature. OTOH saying Jesus "took" that nature is clearer, and this is the language that the SOP uses (as well as her contemporaries).
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]
#108314
02/13/09 06:08 PM
02/13/09 06:08 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
If she was correct in what she wrote to Baker, those "hereditary inclinations" would include the "inherent propensities of disobedience" with which we are born. I wouldn't say "if she was correct" in what she wrote to Baker, but something like "if what she said in the Baker letter means what I think it means ..." as there is a lot of debate as to what she was wishing to say in the Baker letter. Given that it was a private letter, not intended for public consumption, and we don't know what Baker was teaching, I think it would be better to do as she suggested and concentrate on works she intended to be read publicly. Anyway, here are some quotes about what children can get at birth:
Children are born with the animal propensities largely developed, the parents' own stamp of character having been given to them. ... The sins of the parents will be visited upon their children, because the parents have given them the stamp of their own lustful propensities. {RH, September 19, 1899 par. 7}
Parents who indulge in excess of eating and drinking, or in the gratification of the animal propensities, transmit their corrupted blood and vitiated appetites to their children, who have less self-control and less power to resist temptation than the parents had. Many children die in infancy, while many more are ruined for time and eternity, in consequence of the sinful indulgences of the parents. {HR, February 1, 1880 par. 6}
Fathers transmit to their children their own irritable temper, polluted blood, and enfeebled physical, mental, and moral powers; and their own vitiated appetite, intensified, is reproduced in the children. {FPR, March 30, 1879 par. 10} As good parents, there were things which would not have been transmitted to Jesus, just as these things need not be transmitted to other children who also had good parents (noting that, of course, in the case of Jesus, there was only one human biological parent).
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]
#108315
02/13/09 06:16 PM
02/13/09 06:16 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
In particular, did Jesus have a sinful spiritual/moral nature?
Isn't this a red herring?
Far from being a red herring, this is the crux of my beef against postlapsarianism. Hence, when asked, "Did Jesus have a sinful nature," I always answer, No. A better question to ask is, "Did Jesus take a sinful nature," and if asked that, you could respond, "Jesus Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature." It looks like the crux of your beef may be based on certain misunderstandings. Since human nature includes the spiritual/moral nature, and some would argue that this aspect is more definitive of what it means to be human as compared to one's physical nature, it was overzealous to say that "In His human nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you." If Jones had said, "In His physical nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you" then he would not have had to clarify the confusion about bringing Christ's mind into it, as the mind is an important part of human nature. In context, it is clear what Jones was referring to. When Jones said, "Don't bring His mind into it," so that the mind was excluded, what is left? What Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner taught is all very clear. Haskell presented the same thought in reading from The Desire of Ages and explaining, "This is 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.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|