Alchemy said:

"It seems James wants to interpret Pope Francis his own way. Well, he can do that.

But, I simply take Pope Francis at his word."


I do wish James would come clean. I would love to know what church he attends each Sunday. Catholic would seem to be the obvious choice, but some of the other denominations, particularly the Charismatic ones, have become extremely militant in their pro-Catholic views. The ecumenical movement is hard at work!

If I remember correctly, I think James once said he was Seventh-day Adventist. I believe that was proven false, though.

It is amazing that evangelical Christians don't show any great abhorrence for what this pope says. I know I posted an interview where we hear some remarks about Pope Francis I. But, not much.

Let the Seventh-day Adventist Church talk like that and see what happens.

Protestantism needs to learn how to protest again.

Amen to that!

The evangelicals seem to be enthralled by the spirit of this time and place. How can so many sincere souls be so hoodwinked? They see a harmless, saintly, old man talking about unity, compromise, and acceptance. How is it they do not see the arrogance of this usurper of God's throne? How can they not hear the insults to Christ, the veiled threats against all who would follow God, the echo of millions upon millions of murdered innocents reverberating down through the ages, the promise that Rome does not change? How can they not see what is coming?

It's easy to forget that the physical world is not all there is:

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]." Ephesians 6:12

There are dark spiritual forces that work to deceive, to turn eyes and ears away from the urgent warnings of God.

I agree Prodigal that the Pope made a serious mistake that can't be explained away by saying that Jesus would merely be showing humility by confessing his wrong. An "escapade" that required Jesus to ask forgiveness from his parents puts Jesus in a false light. The scriptures say clearly that Christ was "that holy thing" that He knew no sin, that in Him was light and no darkness at all and to the Jews Christ asked "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" John 8:46 If the Pope had read the account and accepted it as it reads he would have seen that in answer to Mary's intended gentle rebuke Jesus, rather than apologizing replied: "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" Luke 2:49.

But my understanding is that the Pope did not bind the church by his falsehood because he wasn't speaking ex cathedra; that is he wasn't making a doctrinal pronouncement but only giving his personal opinion. But as leader of probably the largest world denomination and as someone who has studied the word of God he is accountable to God for this betrayal of the trust of his flock.

Because they have learnt the nuances of language and can intelligently understand statements in context. Essentially, they have grown up; and do not raise false alarms like naive little school boys.

///

You may be right, Mark. Papal infallibility is a muddy doctrine. Some definitions claim the pope must declare he is defining, ex cathedra, a doctrine and that the church is therefore bound to believe his definition. Others state that he merely has to define a doctrine in his capacity as "shepherd and teacher of all Christians". I found one claim that only when the pope is sitting are his pronouncements infallible: since ex cathedra literally means "from the chair". (that last one is my favorite!)

Actually it was the parents that sinned. It was their responsibility to take care of the child, Jesus, but they were so engrossed with their own things, that they lost sight of Jesus.
Jesus was still in the same place where they had left Him.

In this is an important lesson for us --
it is so easy to get engrossed with our things that we too loose sight of Jesus, and sometimes it takes a lot of prayerful searching to find Him again.

I agree that the Pope was presenting this event all wrong.


But what about some Adventists who are so intent on elevating human righteousness to the same level as Christ's righteousness that they insist Christ had the same carnal nature that we are born with, and had to overcome it. If they allow no difference in Christ's nature, they are by default (even if they deny it) saying that Christ had sin in His life that He had to overcome.

I'm not sure I understand, dedication. How does Christ overcoming carnal nature equate with elevating human righteousness to the same level as His? Even if we overcome our carnal nature, we will still have lost to it at some point: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God".

Only Jesus has achieved a righteousness that has never been defeated.
Our so called overcoming is merely a faint shadow of the perfection of Christ.


"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin."
Hebrews 4:15

Is it possible to be "in all points tempted like as [we are]" without a carnal nature?

Also, is it a sin to be tempted by one's carnal nature if by the grace of God every battle is won and the humanly inherited nature is overcome?

Not sure I understand your questions.

I don't believe Christ had a carnal nature.
To believe Christ had a carnal nature implies that He had sin, which is worse than what the pope just said.
I've been in churches where some believed Christ was exactly like us -- the discussions got quite heated, and very evident that they wanted a Christ who had a lot of sin inside himself that He needed to overcome. Of course they claimed that the sin never manifested itself in actions, therefore they still claimed they believed Christ never sinned. However, their idea of a sinless Saviour was totally destroyed by their insistence that He had all this sin inside Himself in the same way humans have sin inside.

By dragging Christ down to our level of "sinful nature" people can then elevate their own righteousness, saying, well Christ had to battle this tendency as well, so I don't feel so bad about it.

When we drag Christ down to our level, we drag down the standard. Then we see in Christ a man struggling against sin, not a perfect life.

Christ didn't have to be "born again" -- He didn't have to overcome a carnal nature. He abhorred sin, it pained Him. He had the spiritual nature from the beginning.

I agree with you that our "overcoming" is but a faint shadow of the perfection of Christ.

There are three natures --
1.The carnal nature, the nature at enmity against God and His law.
2.The natural human nature, the human nature with legitimate needs and desires, that aren't sinful in themselves, but can become sinful.
3.The spiritual nature, which comes only when a person is in connection with God.

We are born with both a natural and carnal nature.
Our carnal state turns our natural needs and desires into sinful thoughts and actions. We must be born again, of the Spirit, to newness of life, only then can we even begin the spiritual walk.

Christ was born with both a natural and spiritual nature.
His spiritual nature, always in connection with His Father, kept his natural human needs and desires under the will of Father, at all times.

There is a dual nature here, Christ's spiritual nature is sinless, yet he takes on human FLESH with all the consequences that sin has wrecked on the human body. His spiritual nature does not possess the evil passions common to the carnal, sinful nature. The carnal nature is compatible to evil, Christ's spiritual nature recoils from evil.

How then can He be tempted in all points as we are?

-- He was tempted FAR MORE than we are.

Sin, when broken down to it's basic reality, is basically the desire to be our own "gods". It is defying God's authority, and doing what we please.

Christ took humanity, and it was agreed in the councils of God, that He would live as a human and not use His Divinity, but place Himself totally under the will of the Father and do only that which the Father commissioned Him to do.



Satan's temptations to Jesus was to try and get Jesus to step out of that role.
He does the same with us -- though for us it's kind of silly for us to think we can be our own "god". But for Christ, it was NOT silly. He WAS GOD, fully divine.
But He must put aside His former power and glory, and live as a man, doing the will of the Father in heaven.