Born sinning or born sinners?

Posted By: Ikan

Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/13/05 04:03 AM

Debbiebrought up on another topic the Catholic concept of "Original Sin", babies and infant baptism.

What are your opinions on all of this?

[ July 30, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Phil N. D'blanc ]
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/13/05 05:32 AM

I think we are born with a nature which apart from God's grace is unable to do anything but sin. We have a self which must be denied. I believe Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature, denied Himself, and has made it possible for us to overcome sin in the flesh. We do this by faith in Christ.
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/13/05 03:41 PM

Wow, Tom That's a record-breaking shorty statement, for you! [Wink]

However, others are concerned whether sin is a thing that is contracted at birth or a merely a history started at birth.
Which sin are we talking about, the sinful nature or the deeds of sin?
Are babies born with a blank slate?
When do they start sinning?
How culpable is a three year old?
What constitutes child salvation?
Posted By: Davros

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/13/05 04:53 PM

A simmilar question would be, do animals sin? Isn't commiting the act of sin having knolidge of doing wrong?
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/15/05 03:13 AM

Good question; I know that I have seen animals look "guilty" when doing something they have been taught would draw the wrath of humans.

But, more to the point: do we inherit a nature geared to sinning, or is it a clean slate at birth and we learn to sin?
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/15/05 03:44 AM

We are born sinners.
quote:

Psalms 51:5
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/15/05 06:59 AM

I'm working at my brevity Phil, but I don't think I can match Will.

We aren't born sinners, but we are born with sinful natures, which, apart from God's grace, can do nothing but sin. This was the state in which Christ was born, but He overcame, not by His own sinlessness, but by faith. How He was able to remain sinless as a young child, the Spirit of Prophesy tells us is a mystery which God has not revealed to us.

Sin in its essence is selfishness. Selfishness is death. Whether one is aware of one's selfishness or not, it still leads to death. God heals us of selfishness by revealing His own self-sacrificing love. When we embrace that truth, as revealed in Christ (i.e., we believe in Christ), we are healed; a new life begins in our soul.

Regarding babies and 3 yr olds, I think the issue is not one of culpability but of healing potential. If God can heal an infant, or young child, then He will and such a one will be in the hereafter. It's hard to imagine an infant or 3 yr. old being resurrected in the judgment of the wicked. What would there be to reveal to such a one? Perhaps there might be a 3 yr. old precocious and prodigious enough to be so resurrected, but that would surely be a very rare thing.
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/15/05 07:00 PM

Phil asked,
quote:
do we inherit a nature geared to sinning, or is it a clean slate at birth and we learn to sin?
- we do inherit a nature at birth that is geared toward sinning.

- we're born with a clean slate as regards guilt.

- we do learn to sin; sin is the result of choice.

Tom E. said,
quote:
Sin in its essence is selfishness.
Not quite, though the truth is close by -- "sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. According to Ellen White, that's the only definition of sin we've been given by God. Selfishness causes us to commit sin, true; but sin itself is not selfishness. Sin is the breaking of God's commandments.

We're not born sinners. We're born under the probation afforded by the fact that Christ stepped in immediately upon Adam's first sin, and offered to take our death penalty. We become sinners when we transgress the law of God; when we choose to disobey.
Posted By: Davros

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/15/05 07:06 PM

Well, Either way, we will sin. Does it really matter how it starts?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/15/05 09:22 PM

Old Tom: Sin in its essence is selfishness.

John: Not quite, though the truth is close by -- "sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. According to Ellen White, that's the only definition of sin we've been given by God. Selfishness causes us to commit sin, true; but sin itself is not selfishness. Sin is the breaking of God's commandments.

Tom: Love is the fulfilling of the law. The essence of love is to put the interests of another ahead of your own. Selfishness is the opposite of that, so it is contratry to the law. So the essence of sin is selfishness.
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/16/05 08:01 AM

Please explain these verses, John Howard:

"Selfishness is sin, and it grieves away the Spirit of Christ. When we cherish unkind thoughts, and harbor suspicions against our brethren, we are cutting ourselves off from the channel of God's light and love. Jealousy is as cruel as the grave, and should never be cherished in the heart, much less expressed in the actions. How cruel it is to cherish evil surmising against those who are members of Christ's body! Accusation, condemnation, and revenge are all of Satanic origin, and evil thoughts of others should be at once rejected from the mind, for these things repulse, and separate the hearts of brethren. Satan rejoices when he can create division in the church of God; for weakness follows, and the things that remain are ready to die. {ST, April 13, 1891 par. 3}

"All sin is selfishness. Satan's first sin was a manifestation of selfishness. He sought to grasp power, to exalt self. A species of insanity led him to seek to supersede God. And the temptation that led Adam to sin was Satan's declaration that it was possible for man to attain to something more than he already enjoyed, possible for him to be as God Himself. The sowing of seeds of selfishness in the human heart was the first result of the entrance of sin into the world. God desires every one to understand the evil of selfishness, and to co operate with Him in guarding the human family against its terrible, deceptive powers. The design of the gospel is to confront this evil by means of remedial missionary work, and to destroy its destructive power by establishing enterprises of benevolence." {WB, September 9, 1902 par. 3}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/16/05 05:48 PM

A study of prenatal influences suggests that babies start developing character in the womb. Character is the result of choices. "All have sinned", therefore all need a Saviour. Wouldn't that include babies in the womb?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/16/05 09:18 PM

What fetus sins were you thinking of, MM? Using God's name in vain? Not remembering the Sabbath day? Covetousness?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/16/05 09:41 PM

Many whom God would use as His instruments have been disqualified at their birth by the previous wrong habits of their parents. When the Lord would raise up Samson as a deliverer of His people, He enjoined upon the mother correct habits of life before the birth of her child. . . . {2BC 1005.7}

In instructing this one mother, the Lord gave a lesson to all who should be mothers to the close of time. Had the wife of Manoah followed the prevailing customs, her system would have been weakened by violation of nature's laws, and her child would have suffered with her the penalty of transgression (GH Feb., 1880). {2BC 1005.8}

Even before the birth of the child, the preparation should begin that will enable it to fight successfully the battle against evil. {MH 371.3}

The effect of prenatal influences is by many parents looked upon as a matter of little moment; but heaven does not so regard it. The message sent by an angel of God, and twice given in the most solemn manner, shows it to be deserving of our most careful thought. {MH 372.3}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/16/05 11:31 PM

None of the quotes you mentioned said anything about fetus sins. I was responding to comments that the fetuses die because they sinned (at least, that looked to me to be the implication).
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/17/05 05:30 AM

Phil,
quote:
Please explain these verses, John Howard:

Selfishness is sin, and it grieves away the Spirit of Christ....

All sin is selfishness....

I'll have to concede the point then! If she used "selfishness" in such a way, I'll have to as well. Thanks for bringing those out, I stand corrected.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/17/05 05:40 AM

If children are concieved and born sinless (I'm not suggesting they are) - then, do they need a Saviour? At what point do humans require a Saviour? Does the word "all" in the text "all have sinned" exclude children before the age of accountability?
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/17/05 06:39 AM

We are definitely all born sinners. Regardless if you are a baby or not.
God weighs this out and doesnt say "well this one was going to be a common thief, so lets put him in the second resurrection". A baby is innocent yes, and thats where that ends.
The Bible is clear we are not only born sinners, and shaped in iniquity, but even at conception we are sinners.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/17/05 06:54 AM

John -- That selfishness is sin can be seen directly from Scripture, as I showed. One doesn't need an affirmation of Scripture from the Spirit of Prophesy to establish truth.

MM wrote: "If children are concieved and born sinless (I'm not suggesting they are) - then, do they need a Saviour? At what point do humans require a Saviour? Does the word "all" in the text "all have sinned" exclude children before the age of accountability?"

Earlier you wrote that all sinned, and that that included babies in the womb. I've asked what these fetus sins would be a couple of times, but haven't received an answer.

When Adam sinned, the entire human race was condemned. Christ is the Savior of the world. (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). He gave His life for the life of the world. (John 6:48-51). To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. Never one, saint or sinner, partakes of His daily food but he is nourished by the body and blood of Christ (DA 660).

We only exist physically because of Christ's sacrifice for us. So no human being can even exist physically but for Christ's sacrifice. Hence Christ is the Saviour of the human race, and all who are members of it are indebted to Him.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/17/05 06:59 AM

Where does the Bible say we are born sinners? Are you thinking of Ps. 51? That doesn't say that, of course, but no verse does. But that's the only one that comes to mind that could be readily misinterpreted that way.

We are born with sinful natures, but that doesn't make us sinners. A sinner is one who sins. If one were conceived sinning, that would imply those in the fetus are sinning, but what sins does a fetus commit? This is the same question I asked of Mike. Sabbath-breaking? Covetousness? Adultery? Bearing false witness?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/17/05 07:46 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
If children are concieved and born sinless (I'm not suggesting they are) - then, do they need a Saviour? At what point do humans require a Saviour? Does the word "all" in the text "all have sinned" exclude children before the age of accountability?

Fetal sins? What about impatience! If a fetus is guilty of being impatient would he require a Saviour? Are babies ever guilty of sins of ignorance? When do humans start sinning? Are children guilty of the sins of their fathers?

Deuteronomy
24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Posted By: Davros

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/17/05 01:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Are babies ever guilty of sins of ignorance?

I think those are the sins that John talks about; they do not lead to death. Still have to ask, does it really matter? Since "all have sined and fallen short of the glory of God," all need a savior.
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/18/05 06:52 AM

EGW saw babies (who had died while still infants) coming up in the first resurrection, so they aren't counted as guilty sinners at birth.

We all need a Savior Who can change our vile bodies from mortal to immortal at the resurrection; in that sense babies need a Savior. That's a different thing from needing a Savior because we're guilty of having sinned. Babies don't have guilt. They do have a corrupt, fallen human nature though.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/18/05 08:00 AM

Yes, but guilt is based on knowledge and accountibility, therefore, infants are incapable of experiencing guilt. Nevertheless, all have sinned, and that must necessarily include infants. However, God does not impute sin and guilt in cases involving sins of ignorance. In such cases, the life and death of Jesus is imputed to cover their sins. But, not all infants will enter the kingdom of heaven. Some will, no doubt, be treated as if they never existed. Perhaps God will base the eternal reward of infants on their parents? We can trust God to do the right thing!
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/18/05 11:32 AM

Could you explain this statement of yours, MM:

"Fetal sins? What about impatience! If a fetus is guilty of being impatient would he require a Saviour?"

John Howard If you agree that we are born "geared to sin", how can you conclude that there is no disease of sin? If I am "geared" to, say, a rash temper, I have it in my genes (heredity or "propensities" according to EGW) and will be brought up in an atmoshpere wher it will be fostered (learned or "aquired" from EGW).
Is this not a result of sin in some manner, in the final anaylsis? It can't be God's perfect plan so what else but the disease of sin?
PS I'm glad you could discover that sin and selfishness are one and the same thing. I don't wish you to "concede" or "be "corrected" at all, old friend, but merely for all of us of the house of God grow in His knowledge together, as I too have gained much here on MSDAOL.
Posted By: debbie

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 06:17 AM

I'd like to know how someone could prove an unborn baby is guilty of impatience--impossible!

I believe the "age of accountability" is around 12 or so. I believe parents stand in the place of their children to God until children are able to understand these things. Many little ones do not understand sin and its consequences. They may make mistakes when young, perhaps even grave mistakes but this does not mean they sinned or understood what they were doing was a sin.

Children begin to understand what sin is and the consequences of sin around the age of 12, give or take a little. At this age, they also start to understand why Jesus died on the cross for them.

But to say an unborn baby could be guilty of impatience or any other sin is ridiculous thinking. There is nothing in the Bible or SOP to back up such a statement. The Catholic Church believes this and this is why they have infant sprinkling at birth--afterall, should the baby die in his sins, he could go to hell or purgatory. They make God out to be some tyrant who hates babies so much He would send them to "hell" supposedly. This is the WORST sort of heresy.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 06:30 AM

Sister White makes it clear that the prenatal influence of parents upon their unborn children is of vital concern with God. Children receive and develop good and bad habits of character during pregnancy. Thus, it is true - All have sinned (including unborn children). Of course infants do not realize they are sinning, therefore, God winks at their ignorance. But the blood of Jesus covers their sins of ignorance, the same as confessed and forsaken sins. Yes, parents are accountable to God for the sins their children commit before the age of accountablility. But this doesn't mean all children will be saved. There comes a point when the legacy of a family is such that their children are born without hope. Such was the case when God ordered the Jews to kill the children of the pagans who occupied the Promised Land.

1MCP 131
The effect of prenatal influences is by many parents looked upon as a matter of little moment; but heaven does not so regard it. The message sent by an angel of God, and twice given in the most solemn manner, shows it to be deserving of our most careful thought.--MH 372 (1905). {1MCP 131.1}

1MCP 132
The thoughts and feelings of the mother will have a powerful influence upon the legacy she gives her child. If she allows her mind to dwell upon her own feelings, if she indulges in selfishness, if she is peevish and exacting, the disposition of her child will testify to the fact. Thus many have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil.--ST, Sept 13, 1910. (Te 171.) {1MCP 132.1}

1MCP 134
The mother who is a fit teacher for her children must, before their birth, form habits of self-denial and self-control; for she transmits to them her own qualities, her own strong or weak traits of character. The enemy of souls understands this matter much better than do many parents. He will bring temptation upon the mother, knowing that if she does not resist him, he can through her affect her child. The mother's only hope is in God. She may flee to Him for grace and strength. She will not seek help in vain. He will enable her to transmit to her offspring qualities that will help them to gain success in this life and to win eternal life.--ST, Feb. 26, 1902. (CD 219.) {1MCP 134.1}

1MCP 134
The basis of a right character in the future man is made firm by habits of strict temperance in the mother prior to the birth of her child. . . . This lesson should not be regarded with indifference. --GH, Feb, 1880. (AH 258.) {1MCP 134.2}

1MCP 135
As a rule, every intemperate man who rears children transmits his inclinations and evil tendencies to his offspring.--RH, Nov 21, 1882. (Te 170.) {1MCP 135.1}

1MCP 135
Yes, every mother may understand her duty. She may know that the character of her children will depend vastly more upon her habits before their birth and her personal efforts after their birth than upon external advantages or disadvantages.--ST, Feb 26, 1902. (CD 218.) {1MCP 135.2}

1MCP 135
The inquiry of every father and mother should be, "What shall we do unto the child that shall be born?" By many the effect of prenatal influence has been lightly regarded; but the instruction sent from heaven to those Hebrew parents, and twice repeated in the most explicit and solemn manner, shows how the matter is looked upon by the Creator.--ST, Feb 26, 1902. {1MCP 135.4}

1MCP 136
Children are born with the animal propensities largely developed, the parents' own stamp of character having been given to them. . . . The brain force is weakened, and memory becomes deficient.... The sins of the parents will be visited upon their children because the parents have given them the stamp of their own lustful propensities.--2T 391 (1870). {1MCP 136.1}

1MCP 136
I have been shown that Satan seeks to debase the minds of those who unite in marriage, that he may stamp his own hateful image upon their children.... {1MCP 136.2}

He can mold their posterity much more readily than he could the parents, for he can so control the minds of the parents that through them he may give his own stamp of character to their children. Thus many children are born with the animal passions largely in the ascendancy while the moral faculties are but feebly developed.--2T 480 (1870). {1MCP 136.3}

1MCP 140
What an enormous weight of responsibility rests upon parents when we consider that the course pursued by them before the birth of their children has very much to do with the development of their character after their birth.--HL (Part 2) 32, 1865. (2SM 426.) {1MCP 140.1}

1MCP 141
Parents should remember that their children must encounter ... temptations. Even before the birth of the child, the preparation should begin that will enable it to fight successfully the battle against evil.--MH 371 (1905). {1MCP 141.1}
Posted By: debbie

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 01:46 AM

When Adam and Eve sinned, they caused a terrible curse to rest on all of us. We are all born in sin but as children we are NOT sinners until we have reached the age of accountability!
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 01:53 AM

Debbie, what is the difference between sins of ignorance and sins of commission? Do both require a Saviour? Where does it say in the Bible, or the SOP, that children do not start sinning until around the age of 12?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 04:53 AM

MM, you're mixing different concepts together. First of all, it is true that pre-natal influences are important. It's true that some babies will be taken to heaven, and others not. But that's not because they have sinned, but because of the possibility of character formation. That is, God will take anyone to heaven that He can, because that is His nature; He is a God of love. If certain infants are mistreated in the womb, and misraised by their parents, it may be impossible for them to be raised in the first resurrection. But none of this has anything whatsoever to do with their sinning. This all has to do with the influence of their parents.

Back to infants sinning. The only thing it appears you appeal to to make this point is "All have sinned" to which, I assume, you have Rom. 3:23 in mind. But that verse isn't even talking about our sin, but Adam's. Even if you were to misunderstand that verse as dealing with men in general, rather than Adam, it still wouldn't follow that the verse would include babies. The verse doesn't include Christ, for example, so the "all" is referring to all whom "all" would make sense to apply. So to apply it to babies is circular reasonsing. There's absolutely nothing in Paul's argument that is dealing with babies. If her were, then the Catholics are right, and we should baptize them.

All humanity needs a Savior because we cannot even live physically without Christ's death. "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life (DA 660)." That's one reason; we can't even live physically with a Savior.

Another reason is that apart from Christ, we cannot know God. "No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:18 GNB)."

quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)
quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 08:34 AM

Tom, at what point do infants or children start sinning? Please provide inspired quotes. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 10:58 AM

ASAIK inspiration does not discuss this. The only quote I'm aware of that's even related in one from EGW which says that it is a mystery unexplained to man how Christ was able to remain sinless as a child. At least something like that, from the Baker letter.

The obvious answer is that sin is possible when one has the ability to discern right from wrong. Fetuses obviosly do not have that capability. The actual time that could occur would surely be different depending on the child. Speaking for myself, I first became aware of the difference between right and wrong at about age 4. However, this was a very fuzzy concept for me. When I became older, I'd say around age 8, it was much clearer to me.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 06:12 AM

According to the Bible sin is the transgression of the law. "Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is "the transgression of the law;" it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government." GC 492. The law does not distinquish between sins of ignorance and sins committed with full and complete knowledge of right and wrong.

Jesus died for all sins, including sins of ignorance. Just because God does not hold infants accountable for the sins they commit in ignorance it does not mean they didn't commit a sin. A sin is a sin is a sin. And Jesus paid the penalty for all sins. No one will be lost because they sinned in ignorance. Salvation depends on accepting Jesus as our personal Saviour. In the case of infants who die before they know the difference between right and wrong God will impute to them the life they would have lived had not death taken them prematurely.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 07:49 PM

quote:
The law does not distinquish between sins of ignorance and sins committed with full and complete knowledge of right and wrong.
Yes it does. John writes, "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which does not lead to death (1 John 5:17)." There were also different types of sin offering, depending upon whether the sin was one of ignorance or not.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 07:55 PM

quote:
In the case of infants who die before they know the difference between right and wrong God will impute to them the life they would have lived had not death taken them prematurely.
Where'd you get an idea like this? The concept of a life that would have been lived is non-sensical. Is there anything from inspiration that speaks of this idea?
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/19/05 08:55 PM

Phil asked,
quote:
John Howard If you agree that we are born "geared to sin", how can you conclude that there is no disease of sin?
Easy. We have fallen natures that have become corrupted due to Adam's sin. But saying that we have sinful natures is not the same as saying we're sinners, or sin-carriers, or infected with sin itself. We're only sinners when we commit sin. Not when we're born.
"No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must be first gained; the soul must purpose the sinful act before passion can dominate over reason or iniquity triumph over conscience."
{5T 177.2}

Mountain Man, as for when the age of accountability kicks in, that happens when the child has a good conception of the claims of God's law, and what it means to transgress that law.
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9
I don't know that we can peg it at any particular age for all children, since different kids mature at different rates. Twelve is a good ballpark figure, but that can vary from person to person.


Tom E., sometimes it is indeed necessary to have an EGW affirmation of the truths of Scripture, when there are differing ideas over what the Scripture means:
"We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error."
{8MR 319.02}

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder [Hiram] Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures. . ."
{SPTB02 56.4}
{1SM 206.4}
If that was good enough for the pioneers of this movement, it's good enough for us.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 01:22 AM

No, Tom, the law does not make a distinction between different types of sin - Jesus does that.

John, sin and accountability are two different aspects of the sin problem. Children begin sinning from the moment of consciousness, but God does not hold them accountable until they know and understand the difference between right and wrong.

Tom, does it seem far fetched that God will impute the life a child would have lived if death hadn't robbed him of a longer life?

Romans
4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 03:56 AM

John Howard posted:

"We have fallen natures that have become corrupted due to Adam's sin. But saying that we have sinful natures is not the same as saying we're sinners, or sin-carriers, or infected with sin itself. We're only sinners when we commit sin. Not when we're born."

Let's see what the Spirit of Prophecy states:

"Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he was a son of Adam like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin; but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing his will. He separated himself from the corrupt descendants of Cain, and labored, as Abel would have done had he lived, to turn the minds of sinful men to revere and obey God." {1SP 60.2}

"Blindness of the heart is a terrible barrier to the discerning of truth. "He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you," is the declaration of Christ, revealing how the Holy Spirit operates upon the mind. Sin is the disease of the soul, in consequence of which the understanding fails to do its appointed work on the heart and memory. For many years I have met this more or less in my experience." {PH028 6.1}

As I understand it, the carnal nature is the personality that is infected with this sin disease, or the following Testimony makes little sense:

"Instead of simply censuring yourself for your defects, you censure the circumstances and occasions which led you to develop the traits in your character which lie dormant or hid beneath the surface unless something arises to disturb and arouse them to life and action. Then they appear in all their deformity and strength.
You deceive yourself with the idea that these unamiable (old fasioned term for "sick, or ill natured") traits do not exist, until you are brought into positions which make you act and speak in a manner that reveals them to all. You are not willing to see and confess that it is your carnal nature which has not yet been transformed and brought into subjection to Christ. You have not yet crucified self."
{2T 572.1}
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 04:51 AM

Degrees of sin is a catholic thing, and thats what I am seeing here. Why are we even suggesting such a thing.
quote:

Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

A new born baby, a baby who died during birth, a child who does not know the difference and all of a sudden dies God will forgive them and they will be in heaven. Adults who fall under the same category, God winks at those things, but God commands us to repent.
This is in the Bible, and we need not even entertain degrees, varying shades or not. If you got a cold you're sick, if you have AIDS you're sick, if you have a sour stomach you're sick.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 08:45 AM

{quote]Tom, does it seem far fetched that God will impute the life a child would have lived if death hadn't robbed him of a longer life?[/quote]

Yes, far-fetched is putting it mildly. This concept is meaningless. A life not lived does not exist.

Regarding sin, I'm not following you're comment. As I pointed out, there are different offerings for sins of ignorance than from other sins. So the law does make a distinction.

John, *after* they attempted to study, and could get no further, then God gave them light. But it was never God's intention to use the Spirit of Prophesy in the place of laziness. I love the Spirit of Prophesy, but it is not to take the place of Scripture, or the study of the same. She makes that abundantly clear. Unfortunately their are many who misuse her writings, thinking they are following her when she has given explicit instructions regarding such. Maybe you can help out here, Phil, as you seem to have a knack of pulling out SOP statements out of the error. Something about not using her in the place of Bible study would be nice.

Although I can't pull a statement out of the air, I can remember an episode. That is, around 1888 a number of times those who opposed Waggoner and Jones' view requested that EGW step in to resolve the matter. She repeatedly requested that they get together (the opposing sides) and prayerfully study the Bible, but those refusing Jones and Waggoner refused to do so. Eventually she did give counsel supporting Jones and Wagoner's view, but only as a last resort when it became clear that they were refusing to study the Scriptures.

Will, regarding shades of truth:

quote:
God does not regard all sins as of equal magnitude; there are degrees of guilt in His estimation, as well as in that of man; but however trifling this or that wrong act may seem in the eyes of men, no sin is small in the sight of God. (SC 30)
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 11:37 AM

Certainly, Tom.

Teenaged Ellen White learned the formula of finding the truth quite early in the Movement. So first i think a pre-1888 statement from her is apropos:

"We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided. One point at a time was made the subject of investigation. The Scriptures were opened with a sense of awe. Often we fasted, that we might be better fitted to understand the truth. After earnest prayer, if any point was not understood, it was discussed and each one expressed his opinion freely; then we would again bow in prayer, and earnest supplications went up to heaven that God would help us to see eye to eye, that we might be one, as Christ and the Father are one. Many tears were shed.
We spent many hours in this way. Sometimes the entire night was spent in solemn investigation of the Scriptures, that we might understand the truth for our time. On some occasions the Spirit of God would come upon me, and difficult portions were made clear through God's appointed way, and then there was perfect harmony. We were all of one mind and one spirit.
We sought most earnestly that the Scriptures should not be wrested to suit any man's opinions. We tried to make our differences as slight as possible by not dwelling on points that were of minor importance, upon which there were varying opinions. But the burden of every soul was to bring about a condition among the brethren which would answer the prayer of Christ that His disciples might be one as He and the Father are one.
Sometimes one or two of the brethren would stubbornly set themselves against the view presented, and would act out the natural feelings of the heart; but when this disposition appeared, we suspended our investigations and adjourned our meeting, that each one might have an opportunity to go to God in prayer, and without conversation with others, study the point of difference, asking light from heaven. With expressions of friendliness we parted, to meet again as soon as possible for further investigation. At times the power of God came upon us in a marked manner, and when clear light revealed the points of truth, we would weep and rejoice together. We loved Jesus; we loved one another.
{CET 193.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 07:04 PM

quote:
Yes, far-fetched is putting it mildly. This concept is meaningless. A life not lived does not exist.
God is in the business of imputing righteousness where none existed before. That's what the plan of salvation is all about, right! "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jer. 1:5.

DA 25
Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His. "With His stripes we are healed." {DA 25.2}

Will, there is nothing "catholic" about varying degrees of sin. Please read Tom's quote above from SC 30.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 07:10 PM

Tom, it is rather unproductive to ignore the SOP when studying the Bible. It's akin to reinventing the wheel. If God has already provided inspired insight on a certain topic or text it is fruitless to refuse to read it. Obviously God thought we needed it, otherwise He wouldn't have inspired Sister White to write it down.
Posted By: Davros

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 07:57 PM

My, you guys can sure spin some heads, but really, what is the point to this?
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 08:19 PM

Sin is still sin. If God doesn't think so then that's a whole different story, but it doesn't really matter what we may think. Sin is still sin, a little lie, or perhaps being deceitful, or stealing.. Its still sin.
I can't believe I am actually having to even go this far. This is truly not profitable.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 10:52 PM

MM: As I said, I love the Spirit of Prophesy. However, one should not use it in place of Scripture, or in place of laziness. The things she wrote are Scriptural, and we should be able to explain them on the basis of Scripture, if for no other reason than to be able to explain them to non-Adventists.

I agree with the principle that one should lay hold of all the light God has given us, and have often used this principle to recommend Waggoner and Jones' writings, which the Spirit of Prophes heartily endorsed (but somehow the reasoning of laying hold of truth seems to get cut off here; I haven't quite figured this one out).

Will: You made a comment about degrees of sin being a Catholic thing. No one denies sin is sin, and as the quote points out, no sin is small to God.

Dave: We're just trying to figure things out! I suppose some things can be akin to trying to figure out how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, but this thread has not struck me that way. It seems to me we have been discussing some pretty fundamental issues which are important to understand. Do you disagree?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 11:12 PM

Tom, well said. Thank you.

Will and Dave, please permit us the opportunity to discuss what is on our hearts without censure. Thank you.

Debbie, do you believe all children, who die before the age of 12, will automatically come up in the first resurrection and go to heaven?
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 11:46 PM

I am able to speak whats on my heart as well. In fact we are told that the Scripture is profitable for correction, doctrine and reproof.
Show me where in the Bible a sin was treated as a "varying degree". David commited adultery and murder, his pride and joy Absolom was killed, Ananias and Saphira thought tthey could play slick and with hold a little bit of cash, what happened next, both dropped dead.
Eve thought that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge wouldn't be so bad, we are all cught in a great controversy "can God be trusted".
What hppened when king Saul disobeyed God's command to destroy Amelek? Haman came up and was going to wipe out every single Jew as a result because of disobedience.
The list can go on and on and on, but the point is that sin is sin, we are born sinners unless you are Christ, and that sin will be punished, the wicked will be destroyed and thrown into the lake of fire, the wine in its full strength will be poured out on the wicked and this is God's wrath. The Bible is extremely clear on this and I stand firmly on what the Word of God says
God Bless,
Will


P.S.
I noticed that in the quote as well Tom, and it does speak volumes (thanks or the quote by the way). Sin was what caused the Son of God to come and become sin for us, and to take it away. He purchased us with His blood, and for that I am grateful, and thankful. It is definitely no small thing, which is why I disagree with varying types of sin.
Posted By: Davros

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 11:46 PM

I do not think it is within my right or ablity to censure any of you. I just think that God knows what he is going to do and it does ot matter if we understand how he works in this or not. I understand that it may be of some relavence to some, but I have hard time seeing it for myself.
Posted By: Surrender

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/20/05 11:53 PM

Hi all,
Just a comment or question on the born sinner or born sinful postings.

If we who believe we are born sinful and not sinners were to posit: OK. All unrighteousness is sin (1 Jn 5:17) and selfishness is unright, and unright does not love your neighbor which breaks the law of God. Babies are born selfish since they use selfishness to communicate I need attention right now - I'm wet, I'm hungry, etc. and demand you come now!! BUT being born as sinners they are also born reconciled to God by the death of His Son (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:15)) and stand just as if they had not sinned at birth until such time as they can choose to sin or choose to live after the flesh rather than to be led by the Holy Spirit and mortify the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13) e.g. selfishly crying demandingly!! Huh?, what if??
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 12:26 AM

Surrender, yes, infants definitely manifest selfish behaviour. But, I'm not sure about the idea that everyone is saved until they choose to be lost?

Will, what do you make of the idea that the unsaved will be punished according to their works? some receive more "stripes" than others?

Luke
12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes].
12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

EW 294
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 01:39 AM

Mike,
The end result is that all unrepentant sinners will suffer that are cast into the lake of fire. Ideas of lightly punished sins make it easier for people to feel safe in telling little lies to get by, or to maybe sort of cheat on taxes cause they know better than God.
The end does not justify the means i.e. lightly burnt to a crust for evil world dictators vs others who will be instantly burned for tax evasion.
I personally would much rather prefer not to even be close to the heat, but enjoying eternity with Christ.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 01:56 AM

Will, I'm having trouble understanding your point. I assume you agree with this statement:

quote:
God does not regard all sins as of equal magnitude; there are degrees of guilt in His estimation, as well as in that of man (SC 30).
Even without the inspired quote, this concept is patently obvious. Lusting after a woman in one's heart is not the same as committing adultery with her. Being angry at someone is not the same as killing them. They are the same in principle, and are the same in the fact that they are sins, but are quite different in degree. It takes a great deal more healing to be rescued from the sin of murder than from the sin of anger.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:02 AM

quote:
Surrender, yes, infants definitely manifest selfish behaviour. But, I'm not sure about the idea that everyone is saved until they choose to be lost?

We can safely say that no one will be lost (i.e. in the second resurrection) who doesn't choose to be lost, but it's not correct, according to the SOP, that all infants will be in the first resurrection. She discusses this in 3SM, if I'm not mistaken (it's one of the SM's; I think 3, but maybe one of the others). She doesn't make absolute declarations, but states in less than absolute terms that infants who are raised by the non-saved who educate them well may be resurrected while those who are raised poorly by Christians may not be.

My understanding on this subject is that whether or not an infant is resurrected has to do with their potential for character-building. That is, God can determine whether they would be happy, prodctive citizens of heaven ("save to save") and will resurrect them accordingly. This makes a whole lot more sense to me than the idea that God looks at how they would have lived had they not died, which is impossible to know.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:11 AM

quote:

Matthew 5:27,28
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Its the same thing. If you lust after someone you have committed adultery. Jesus didn't say that its not really adultery cause you didn't physically touch her, but only thought it. He says that you have committed adultery in your heart.
Its adulterous to lust after a woman. Its murder to hate your brother.
Its a sin to rebel against God. It s like witchcraft which is an abomination, you dont have to go practicing witchcraft, all you need to do is rebel agaainst God and you are lumped right in there with ms.Cleo, and Idi Amin ( a murderous dictator in Africa).
Its not as if liars go to room 3, and prostitutes to the secondlevel room 4, you reap what you sow. Its either sin unto death, or obedience unto righteousness.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:14 AM

I'm really having trouble understanding how your view coincides with this:

quote:
God does not regard all sins as of equal magnitude; there are degrees of guilt in His estimation, as well as in that of man (SC 30).
Plus, it's clear to anyone who has lost a loved one by murder or who has been "adultered" against that murder/anger lust/adultery are worlds apart. Or to anyone who has committed these sins. The sin of adultery requires much more healing than the sin of lust. Both require healing, however.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:24 AM

My view is based on the Bible. Whether it coincides, is contradictory to what Sister White says is completely immaterial and carries zero weight. If her writings are in contradiction to the Bible then choose the Bible. She said it herself. If you find that her words are infallible because the same Spirit that inspired her also inspired the writers of the Bible, then I suggest looking at it in a much broader scope and realizing that hell was made for the devil and his angels, God doesn't want to destroy the wicked sinners on this earth, but to instead turn away, and if you don't you will find yourself with a rather rude awakening. Its that easy.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:29 AM

I'm looking at the bigger picture. being cheated on by a spouse is very sad, having a spouse that is flirtatious is just as bad if not worse. Still the person is adulterous and it is sin. A murder acts out the hatred physically, and you can hate someone where you kill them in your mind. The common thread is that your heart was in that place. The end result if you dont repent and are converted is going to be... destruction in a physical lake of fire that is going to be very very hot. There will be gnashing of teeth also. Whether you are a church leader who watered down the Gospel to have people live in sin, or are a cannibal in north america. The wages of sin is death.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:29 AM

quote:
If you find that her words are infallible because the same Spirit that inspired her also inspired the writers of the Bible, then I suggest looking at it in a much broader scope and realizing that hell was made for the devil and his angels, God doesn't want to destroy the wicked sinners on this earth, but to instead turn away, and if you don't you will find yourself with a rather rude awakening.
I'm sorry Will, but I don't understand what you wrote above.

I pointed out that even apart from the Spirit of Prophesy that it's obvious that the sins of murder/anger adulter/lust are not the same, and gave reasons. If you have lost a loved one due to murder, you know they are different. If you have committed adultery, or been "adultered" against, you know they are different.

I've heard others who have the same view you do, but have never seen the sense in it. What EGW wrote is, it seems to me, patently obvious. You're taking something literally, IMO, that was never meant to be so taken; like when Jesus said you should poke out your eye or cut off your hand.
Posted By: Surrender

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:39 AM

quote:
But, I'm not sure about the idea that everyone is saved until they choose to be lost?

I don't believe that about babies either since there's clear SOP to the contrary, so I see where I didn't go far enough with my comment. Perhaps I'll get a chance to expand later but time is quick right now.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:50 AM

It doesn't change the fact that sin is sin. You don't repent you die. You want to hang out with the office girls after work while in your heart youwant one of them really badly while the wife is at home and keep it a secret, and not repent, but still think you are filled with the Holy Spirit will result in you being destroyed, you will die, you will not bein heaven, you will be an a very bad place, and will be destroyed. No skimming it or coming in at any angles. The wages of sin is death, not the wages of sin y will lead to a spanking.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 02:55 AM

Will, no one is disputing that sin is sin and that it will result in death. It's just the comment that there are no degrees of sin that some are taking issue with. There are degrees of sin, and degrees of punishment.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 03:39 AM

I would like to see in the Bible the examples of degrees of sin and their different levels of punishment.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 06:00 AM

quote:
Numbers 15:27-31
(27) And if any soul sins through ignorance, then he shall bring a female goat of the first year for a sin offering.

(28) And the priest shall make atonement for the soul who sins ignorantly, when he sins by ignorance before YHWH, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

(29) You shall have one Law for him who sins through ignorance, both for him who is born among the people of Israel, and for the stranger who sojourns among them.

(30) But the soul who does anything presumptuously, whether he is born in the land, or a stranger, that person dishonors YHWH; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

(31) Because he has despised the word of YHWH, and has broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.


Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 06:33 AM

Another one:
Luke 12:47,48
47 "And that servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to His will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 06:53 AM

Back on the subject of babies, there's not a single inspired statement anywhere that says we're born sinners, or born condemned, or born sinning, or that babies sin.

Phil, saying that we're "born in sin" is quite a different thing from saying we're born sinners. We're born in an environment of sin, but that doesn't make us sinners. Being born into a family of thieves doesn't make us a born thief. We don't become thieves until we steal. Similarly, we don't become sinners until we sin. And we can't sin until we know what the law says. That's not possible for babies.

As far as sin being the disease of the soul -- that also happens after we *choose* to sin. Not at birth. Nowhere in Inspiration is sin described as being an involuntary thing. It's always the result of choice.

Tom E., here's the passage you were looking for, about babies of unbelievers:
"I had some conversation with Elder [J.G.] Matteson in regard to whether children of unbelieving parents would be saved. I related that a sister had with great anxiety asked me this question, stating that some had told her that the little children of unbelieving parents would not be saved.
{3SM 313.1}

"This we should consider as one of the questions we are not at liberty to express a position or an opinion upon, for the simple reason that God has not told us definitely about this matter in His Word. If He thought it was essential for us to know, He would have told us plainly.
{3SM 313.2}

"The things He has revealed are for us and for our children. There are things we do not now understand. We are ignorant of many things that are plainly revealed. When these subjects which have close relation to our eternal welfare are exhausted, then it will be ample time to consider some of these points that some are unnecessarily perplexing their minds about.
{3SM 313.3}

"I know that some questioned whether the little children of even believing parents should be saved, because they have had no test of character and all must be tested and their character determined by trial. The question is asked, "How can little children have this test and trial?" I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children. . . .
{3SM 313.4}

"Some parents allow Satan to control their children, and their children are not restrained, but are allowed to have wicked tempers, to be passionate, selfish, and disobedient. Should they die these children would not be taken to heaven. The parent's course of action is determining the future welfare of their children. If they allow them to be disobedient and passionate they are allowing Satan to take them in charge and work through them as shall please his satanic majesty, and these children, never educated to obedience and to lovely traits of character, will not be taken to heaven, for the same temper and disposition would be revealed in them.
{3SM 314.4}

"I said to Brother Matteson, 'Whether all the children of unbelieving parents will be saved we cannot tell, because God has not made known His purpose in regard to this matter, and we had better leave it where God has left it and dwell upon subjects made plain in His Word.'"
{3SM 315.1}
So we just don't know.

But we do know that some babies will be raised in the first resurrection, so it's just not possible that babies are sinners. Sinners will not be taken to heaven, by anyone's definition.

One more thing: Tom E., I thought I detected an inference on your part that I might be "lazy." I hope that wasn't your intent. The reason I brought up how EGW sometimes settled differences on the Scriptures is that many times she did just that, when people came to honest differences of opinion on what the Scriptures mean -- without any laziness being involved. That's just what happened earlier in this thread, with respect to the terms "sin" and "selfishness." You said they're the same, and I said they're not, that one can cause the other. That conclusion of mine was not based on "laziness," but on much study. But I was mistaken, even so. Phil's posting of an SOP passage showed my error, and I was glad for it. But please don't be so high-minded as to think that whomsoever disagrees with your conclusions on Bible topics is automatically "lazy." That's just not the case.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 07:21 AM

Hmm. this begs the question then who arewe when we are born? Not to regress to such a point but if we are not born sinners, but are born in sin, but arent sinful or are then is there a sort of void that exists?
I did read that there will be children in heaven (somewhere in Isaiah).
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 08:51 AM

People here seem to take things very personally. Not just you John, but others as well. I didn't have you in mind as being personally lazy in any way, shape or form, and am truly sorry that you took offence. The fact that you are participating in this forum is obvious proof that you are not lazy.

What I was saying was that using the Spirit of Prophesy should not take the place of studying Scripture -- to use her that way is lazy. God has given us His Word, and minds to think things out. She never said she was an inspired commentary, or that we should use her so we wouldn't need to reason from the Scriptures. *After* the pioneers went as far as the could in studying that Scriptures, *then* the Holy Spirit gave additional light. He continues to do so today.

We should lay hold of all the truth and light God has for us. I've repeatedly said this, and applied it especially to Jones and Waggoner, whom the Spirit of Prophesy endorsed most highly.

Once again, I'm sorry that you apparently took what I said personally. My comments weren't directed at you, and if I'm not mistaken, I've used them in responding to the comments of at least one other besides yourself. I suppose I should have made it clear that the comments were not personal. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 08:55 AM

John, you are absolutely mistaken in your view regarding infants and children being unable to sin since they don't understand the claims of the law. People sin all the time even though they don't know or understand the law. Many Sunday-keepers break the Sabbath every week without realizing they are sinning. Of course God winks at their ignorance but it doesn't change the fact they are sinning. The law condemns us as sinners whether we know it or not. It is Jesus who is just and merciful and takes into account that we are but flesh. Ps 78:39. Our will is under the control of Satan until we yield it to Jesus.

5T 515
You need to drink daily at the fountain of truth, that you may understand the secret of pleasure and joy in the Lord. But you must remember that your will is the spring of all your actions. This will, that forms so important a factor in the character of man, was at the Fall given into the control of Satan; and he has ever since been working in man to will and to do of his own pleasure, but to the utter ruin and misery of man. But the infinite sacrifice of God in giving Jesus, His beloved Son, to become a sacrifice for sin, enables Him to say, without violating one principle of His government: "Yield yourself up to Me; give Me that will; take it from the control of Satan, and I will take possession of it; then I can work in you to will and to do of My good pleasure." When He gives you the mind of Christ, your will becomes as His will, and your character is transformed to be like Christ's character. Is it your purpose to do God's will? Do you wish to obey the Scriptures? "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." {5T 515.1}

Romans
7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
7:10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].
7:12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 09:11 AM

How is it that an infant breaks the Sabbath? Or commits any other sin? Can you give an example of a fetus sin or infant sin?

I don't think I agree with anybody here (except me, and even that I'm not too sure about). The Spirit of Prophesy said in relation to how Christ could remain sinless as a child that this was a mystery unexplained to mortals. It seems to me that many here are wanting to adament about related subjects of which we simply don't have much light.

I don't fully agree with John's position regarding sin, as he seems to have a narrow view of sin IMO (I could be mistaken, but this is my impression, but this is another topic -- this comment is simply an aside saying I don't fully agree with John's position as I understand it) but he makes a good point about there not being any inspired statements about newborn infants or fetuses sinning. At least I'm not aware of any, and I don't see how it makes any sense. We wouldn't say that animals are breaking the Sabbath or committing adultery or such. Fetuses have no more ability to do right or wrong then animals do, do they?

I know John the Baptist jumped for joy in his mother's womb, but then again God used a donkey to speak to Balaam. I'm not wishing to fall into the same pattern of being too adament here, so please take these comments as one who is inquiring, not wishing to delve too deeply into things which have not been revealed to us.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 05:30 PM

If infants cannot do right or wrong, then, as Will asks, is there a void period? and, how long does it last? Since our will is under the control of Satan, until we choose to give it to Jesus, how can infants do anything but sin? Since not all infants are automatically heaven bound, what prevents them from going? if it's not sin, then what is it?

Tom, if certain types of slaves will not go to heaven, because their masters beat them down to less than brute beasts (EW 276), how can God take infants to heaven who are no different than animals, as you pointed out above?

Also, if God will make eternal decisions regarding certain people based on whether or not they would live happy lives in heaven, how is that different from what I posted about judging infants on the lives they would have lived if death hadn't taken them prematurely? Either way God is imputing a life that wasn't lived, right?

Will, I was praying this morning about what you posted regarding sin and death and it occurred to me that death is the end of the punishment, not necessarily the punishment itself. According to the insights posted above every sin ends in death but not all sins are punished equally. In the case of brute slaves they are not punished for their sins, instead their earthly masters are. Nevertheless, though, these particular slaves must remain dead as a result of their sinful condition.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 07:07 PM

Thank you for the scriptures and SOP that has been provided. The Scriptures do describe that God punishes sins differently, and Sister White follows up on that in an easy to understand way.
The end result is death for the unrepentant, but the sins themselves are treated differently. I really do appreciate not only your patience, but also the wisdom gained from fellowshipping with you all.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 07:08 PM

You are absolutely right Mike, and I thank God for impressing our hearts and minds because mine was weighing heavily on this. Why I really do not know, but it is the truth and that never changes. Thanks for your words [Smile]
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/21/05 09:32 PM

Tom: Very good questions, MM.

MM: If infants cannot do right or wrong, then, as Will asks, is there a void period? and, how long does it last?

Tom: I don't know what a void period means. There's a time before the age of accountability, if that's what you mean.

MM: Since our will is under the control of Satan, until we choose to give it to Jesus, how can infants do anything but sin?

Tom: Who says that will of babies is under the control of Satan? John the Baptist jumped for joy in his mother's womb. EGW speaks of the influence of believing parents on infants, as per John's quote above.

MM: Since not all infants are automatically heaven bound, what prevents them from going? if it's not sin, then what is it?

Tom: Their ability to form character in harmony with the principles of God's government. It's sin that prevents them from going, but not their own. The SOP quotes cited by John make that clear.

MM: Tom, if certain types of slaves will not go to heaven, because their masters beat them down to less than brute beasts (EW 276), how can God take infants to heaven who are no different than animals, as you pointed out above?

Tom: Because the infants which are taken to heaven have the ability to form characters in harmony with the principles of God's government, while the beaten slaves to not.

MM: Also, if God will make eternal decisions regarding certain people based on whether or not they would live happy lives in heaven, how is that different from what I posted about judging infants on the lives they would have lived if death hadn't taken them prematurely? Either way God is imputing a life that wasn't lived, right?

Tom: Because your view is looking at something hypothetical involving what might have happened had things been different, whereas my view is looking at what will actually happen. It's not a question of what would so-and-so have done if blah blah blah but will so-and-so be happy in heaven now if I resurrect him/her. Are they safe to save? That's not a hypothetical question, although the criteria God uses to make this decision has not been clearly laid out for us, as EGW points out.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/22/05 12:32 AM

Will, you're welcome. Yes, it is good to provoke one another to godliness and goodness. Heb 10:24.

Tom, good answers. Thank you. But I still don't see a major difference between "would have" and "will" as it pertains to the method God uses to determine which children will be in heaven. Both require divine insight and intuition, a knowledge of the beginning and end of all things.

The void? Well, yes, the period between conception and accountability. At what point do people start sinning? I believe it begins from the initial dawning of consciousness (i.e., in the mothers womb). As such, there is no void period. Since our will was, at the Fall, given into the control of Satan, who has been working ruin in mankind ever since, we cannot not sin.

Not until we're born again do we possess the ability, by faith, to partake of the divine nature and holiness of God. Again, God does not hold children accountable for their sinful thoughts, feelings, motives, words, or behaviour until they reach a point where they know the difference between right and wrong. Whether they are saved or lost, if they should die before they arrive at the age of accountability, is something that only God knows.

However, there is no neutral ground, no void, no middle place. That's why the gospel commission is so important. Souls are dying daily for want of the gospel. We are not automatically saved at birth, we must be born again. The reason we must be born again is because our first birth was defective. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3. We must be adopted to go to heaven.

MB 94
No one can occupy a neutral position; there is no middle class, who neither love God nor serve the enemy of righteousness. Christ is to live in His human agents and work through their faculties and act through their capabilities. Their will must be submitted to His will; they must act with His Spirit. Then it is no more they that live, but Christ that lives in them. He who does not give himself wholly to God is under the control of another power, listening to another voice, whose suggestions are of an entirely different character. Half-and-half service places the human agent on the side of the enemy as a successful ally of the hosts of darkness. When men who claim to be soldiers of Christ engage with the confederacy of Satan, and help along his side, they prove themselves enemies of Christ. They betray sacred trusts. They form a link between Satan and the true soldiers, so that through these agencies the enemy is constantly working to steal away the hearts of Christ's soldiers. {MB 94.1}
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/22/05 04:38 PM

I haven't read the discussion, but in my view we are born sinners because we are born selfish (with a selfish human nature), and selfishness is sin, whether expressed in acts or not; besides, by selfishness we are born separated from God.

"Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God. But provision is made for the repenting sinner, so that by faith in the atonement of the only begotten Son of God, he may receive forgiveness of sin, find justification, receive adoption into the heavenly family, and become an inheritor of the kingdom of God. Transformation of character is wrought through the operation of the Holy Spirit, which works upon the human agent, implanting in him, according to his desire and consent to have it done, a new nature. The image of God is restored to the soul, and day by day he is strenghtened and renewed by grace, and is enabled more and more perfectly to reflect the character of Christ in righteousness and true holiness" (RH, September 17, 1895).

"The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man's behalf. . . . Christ's perfect example and the grace of God are given him to enable him to train his sons and daughters to be sons and daughters of God. It is by teaching them, line upon line, precept upon precept, how to give the heart and will up to Christ that Satan's power is broken." {CG 475.3}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/22/05 10:47 PM

quote:
I haven't read the discussion, but in my view we are born sinners because we are born selfish (with a selfish human nature), and selfishness is sin, whether expressed in acts or not; besides, by selfishness we are born separated from God.
I don't think this formulation works because Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature, yet He was not selfish. He had to fight the selfish temptations which our sinful natures press upon us, as we do, and where we have all failed, He succeeded (I'm expecting Amen's from John here -- not John B., the other one). Christ partook of the same heredity that we do, without exception. We have nothing to face on the basis of heredity that Christ did not face. I think DA 49 discusses this (among many, many other statements).

Also there's no Scriptural basis for the statement that we are born separated from God. As infants, our connectedness to God is dependent upon our parents, which this thread has made clear. John the Baptist jumped for joy in him mother's womb.

Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race to favor with God (1SM 343). This includes infants.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/23/05 01:33 AM

Why not me Tom? I say Amen!
Since by sinful nature you mean "sinful flesh", and I trust you mean that he overcame by divine nature which he also gives us.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/23/05 02:26 AM

I'd say He overcame by faith, as we may as well.
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/23/05 05:12 PM

I say Amen too (as expected). [Smile]

The Bible says it's sin that separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2), not being born. Separation is the result of voluntary choices on our part, not the involuntary act of being born.

Unless someone wants to say that fetuses transgress God's law in the womb; that's the only way we can be born sinners!
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/24/05 06:43 AM

quote:
Unless someone wants to say that fetuses transgress God's law in the womb; that's the only way we can be born sinners!
If I'm not mistaken, this is what MM was saying, but I have trouble fathoming fetus sins.

It's a difficult subect to parse correctly. The way I would put it, taking into account things brought out in this thread, is that infants are born with sinful natures which, apart from God's grace, can do nothing but sin. Christ was also born this way (just considering His humanity here). For infants there is a connection with the parents which makes it possible for infants to be "connected" to God. God has not explained the details of this to us. We know that Christ's parents were carefully chosen. We are told that it is mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ was able to remain sinless as an infant/young child.

The easier way for me to conceive of things, rather than trying to decipher the exact point at which one becomes a sinner, which I believe is irrelevant, is in terms of character. God will take everyone to heaven who would be happy there, regardless of the age. If one's character is in harmony with the principles of heaven, or one's character yet to be developed (in the case of infants), then God will take such a one to heaven. This makes sense to me, and has the advantage of being simple.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/24/05 06:55 AM

Tom,

quote:
Christ partook of the same heredity that we do, without exception.
Of course not. Christ did not have sinful propensities, which means He was not born selfish.

John,

quote:
The Bible says it's sin that separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2), not being born
We are born selfish, and selfishness is sin. In fact, selfishness is the satanic nature, in the same way that love is the divine nature.

Ephesians 2:3 and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/23/05 07:36 PM

quote:
Christ partook of the same heredity that we do, without exception.
R: Of course not. Christ did not have sinful propensities, which means He was not born selfish.

T: You're misapplying EGW's use of the word "propensities." Sinful propensities, as she used the term, refers to cultivated habits, not genetic predisposition. She says we need not retain our sinful propensities, which would of course be impossible if they were genetic.

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)
Christ accepted the law of heredity, whose effects are shown in the history of His ancestors. What are those effects? Murder, adultery, and the basest sort of sins. This was the heredity which Christ took. He had no special exemption over us. This is a Catholic idea.

That Christ took our fallen nature with all of its tendencies was a central part of the preaching of Jones and Waggoner which EGW strongly endorsed, and she specifically endorsed this particular feature of their message. Plus no other view than the post-lapsarian view (i.e. Christ took the nature of fallen Adam, being tempted in all points as we are, including from within) appeared in SDA literature for about the first 100 years of the SDA church.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/24/05 05:01 PM

quote:
T: You're misapplying EGW's use of the word "propensities." Sinful propensities, as she used the term, refers to cultivated habits, not genetic predisposition.
This is not at all what the text says:

“Because of sin, his [Adam’s] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}

quote:
She says we need not retain our sinful propensities, which would of course be impossible if they were genetic.
Do we need to retain selfishness?
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/25/05 06:46 AM

The Victorian usage of the word "propensity" is often missaplied today in SDA circles.

Here is Webster's two meaning:

1.a natural inclination or tendency; bent

2.[Obscure] favorable inclination; bias (for)


The first sounds applicable to genetic and/or learned twists in personality.

But the other, being the old usage, I feel the one EGW would have used, appears to be a matter of decision and will, a relish, attraction or enjoyment. This Christ could not have had toward any sin.
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/25/05 06:51 AM

I don't know, Tom: I agree with the general tone of your last few posts, but can we not have freedom when trully born again from our genetic propensities as well? Is the drunk's gene to always rule over the redeemed, or is rebirth actual recreation, rewiring, recoding, if we have the faith of Jesus?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/24/05 08:46 PM

Since a fetus is a human being, in every sense of the word, it starts developing character in the womb. Please review the quotes regarding this point earlier on in this thread. Infants are born selfish. No doubt about it. We are by nature the children of wrath. We must be born again. Why? Because our first birth is sinful and defective.

Our will is under the control of Satan. We cannot not sin until we're born again. If we are born sinless, and continue to be sinless until around age 12 (as some believe), then we need not be born again until after 12, which would mean Jesus did not die for children, only adults, which, of course, sounds (and is) heretical.

Jesus was born with the same sinful flesh nature we possess, but He was born like a born again believer, not like an unsaved sinner. There is a huge difference between the two. So, yes, His sinful nature clamored for sinful expression the same as a born again believer, but He never once yielded to it. So it may be with us. Like Jesus, we too can recognize and resist the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated by our fallen flesh nature. By staying connected to Jesus we can be more than conquerors - just like Jesus.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/25/05 12:08 AM

T: You're misapplying EGW's use of the word "propensities." Sinful propensities, as she used the term, refers to cultivated habits, not genetic predisposition.

R: This is not at all what the text says:

“Because of sin, his [Adam’s] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}

T: It is what the text says, and it would have to be, or else she would be contradicting Haskell, Jones, Prescott, Waggoner, and most of all herself in many other explicit statements and endorsements. As I mentioned previously, the entire SDA denomination did not know of even the idea that Christ took a pre-fallen nature until after nearly 100 years. The first time this idea appeared in print, if memory serves, was in 1947 in a Ministry magazine.

Also the statement you are quoting from is a private letter, which if we are going to follow her own counsel on how she said her own writings should be used, we shouldn't even be considering. She said if we wanted to know her opinion on a given subject we should consult her published works, which is why I was quoting from The Desire of Ages, which is her definitive statement on Christology (the subject matter of the book being the life of Christ).

But even if you look at the text (which according to her counsel we shouldn't be) you will notice it says, "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." This makes it clear she was considering "propensity" not as something genetic, but as having to do with sinning.

Note: He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

This statement is absolute nonsense if we consider it to be genetic. Let's try it out and see:

He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him sinful genes.

Old Tom:She says we need not retain our sinful propensities, which would of course be impossible if they were genetic.

R: Do we need to retain selfishness?

T: We need to be partakers of the divine nature by faith and overcome the promptings of our flesh, just as Christ did.

The following statement is one amongs many which makes clear that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature (or equivalent partook of our sinful flesh)

quote:
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." (BE 9/3/00)
Note the the likeness of sinful flesh is contrasted to Adam, who had no corrupt principles or tendencies to evil.

Note the "but".

Also note the following from the Desire of Ages (same quote as before)

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)
The emphasized part is very important. Some have the mistaken idea that Christ's taking our natures simply means He could grow weary or hungry like we do. But when EGW speaks of His accepting the great law of heredity, she clarifies what she means by pointing out that the results are shown by the history of His earthly ancestors. What was this history? It was not a history of growing weary or hungry, but a history of sin; a history of murder, adultery and many other base sins. *This* was the heredity of which Christ partook, and she explains why: "He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/25/05 12:56 AM

quote:
I don't know, Tom: I agree with the general tone of your last few posts, but can we not have freedom when trully born again from our genetic propensities as well? Is the drunk's gene to always rule over the redeemed, or is rebirth actual recreation, rewiring, recoding, if we have the faith of Jesus?
Sure we can have freedom from the effect of our bad genes, but our bad genes remain. Christ had the same bad genes we have, but He triumphed over them. We can participate in His victory by faith.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/25/05 01:12 AM

MM: Since a fetus is a human being, in every sense of the word, it starts developing character in the womb.

Tom: It develops a potential for developing character, but character has to do with making decisions, integrity and such things. What decisions does a fetus make?

MM: Please review the quotes regarding this point earlier on in this thread. Infants are born selfish. No doubt about it.

Tom: Christ was an infant. Therefore Christ was born selfish. This disproves your assertion, sinc e the conclusion is absurd.

So let's try this one: All infants with the exception of Christ are born selfish. This doesn't have the difficult of being immediately disproveable, but what is the basis for this assertion?

MM: We are by nature the children of wrath. We must be born again. Why? Because our first birth is sinful and defective.

T: We must be born again because of unbelief. That's what Jesus says in John 3. What's the basis of your assertion that we must be born again because our first birth is sinful and defective?

MM: Our will is under the control of Satan. We cannot not sin until we're born again.

T: If you mean be this that we cannot overcome sin without being born again, I agree. If you mean we can do nothing but sin without being born again, I don't agree with that. That sounds like original sin where we are tainted by our heredity. This is not SDA theology. But I may be misunderstanding you, so I'll stop here.

MM: If we are born sinless,
and continue to be sinless until around age 12 (as some believe),

Tom: I don't know anybody who believes this. Who are you thinking of?

MM: then we need not be born again until after 12, which would mean Jesus did not die for children, only adults, which, of course, sounds (and is) heretical.

T: This whole sentence is non-sensical. First of all, nobody that I've ever heard of believes anybody remains sinless until age 12. Everything Christ did, not just His death, but His life, death, and resurrection (and ministry and Second Coming) is for all of humanity. This has nothing to do with when one reaches the age of accountability. The entire race was restored to favor with God but Christ's work (1SM 343). This includes infants of course.

MM: Jesus was born with the same sinful flesh nature we possess, but He was born like a born again believer, not like an unsaved sinner.

T: What is your basis for asserting this? I'm aware of a statement that it is a mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ remained sinless as a child, but I'm not aware of a statement saying what you are saying.

MM: There is a huge difference between the two. So, yes, His sinful nature clamored for sinful expression the same as a born again believer, but He never once yielded to it. So it may be with us. Like Jesus, we too can recognize and resist the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated by our fallen flesh nature. By staying connected to Jesus we can be more than conquerors - just like Jesus.

Tom: I agree with this last part, mostly, but I wouldn't say "His sinful nature" myself, as this may be misunderstood, but I understand your intent, and agree that we may overcome in our flesh as Christ did.
Posted By: John Caldwell

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/25/05 09:49 AM

In this discussion you are not addressing what Paul sys in I Corinthians 15:

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is talking about the second death since he says that ïn Christ shall all be made alive.” This text seems to imply that without Christ we will all suffer the second death because of Adam.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/25/05 07:29 PM

Tom, the quotes shared earlier in this thread make it abundantly clear that unborn babies begin developing character in the womb. What choices do they make? Well, I'm sure whatever choices do they make are instinctive, spontaneous, not unlike many of the choices we make, choices which we immediately regret and repent of.

Is there anyone on this thread who believes children are sinless until around age 12? Go back a few pages and you'll see what, and who, I mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean about using the phrase "sinful nature" - but Paul uses the phrase "sinful flesh". So, if anyone has a problem with it they have a problem with Paul, which isn't too terribly unusual.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/26/05 11:30 AM

quote:
Tom, the quotes shared earlier in this thread make it abundantly clear that unborn babies begin developing character in the womb. What choices do they make? Well, I'm sure whatever choices do they make are instinctive, spontaneous, not unlike many of the choices we make, choices which we immediately regret and repent of.
What quotes? Almost none of what you've said on this thread have I perceived as anything but your opinion. Virtually none of what you've been saying here has any backing from either Scripture (which is usual) or from the Spirit of Prophesy (which is unusual).

You still haven't suggested what a fetus sin might be. What is an example of something a fetus would do which it should repent of? Some choice which is not unlike a choice of ours? Should it repent of sucking its thumb?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/26/05 02:25 PM

Tom,

As I said in the past, just because Ellen White said that Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary and recommended the article he wrote in The Day-Star Extra, this doesn’t mean I have to accept his shut-door views and other errors he defends in this article. Just because she recommended the book Daniel and Revelation of Uriah Smith, this doesn’t mean I have to accept all that is written there; and the same is true of Waggoner or any other she may have recommended or said they had light on a certain subject. There is a great difference between qualified and full endorsement. So, I don’t have to make reinterpretations of Ellen White’s words to make her views fit those of others.
Whatever Ellen White meant by saying that Christ assumed our sinful nature, this of course excludes sinful propensities, and she is very clear about this. She says that while Adam’s posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience, not for one moment was there in Christ an evil propensity. (So propensities are something with which human beings are born).
Some other texts confirming what she says in the Baker letter:

He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family. He did not have a mere semblance of a body, but He took human nature, participating in the life of humanity.--Letter 97, 1898. {7ABC 462.2}

In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. -- The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.

quote:
This statement is absolute nonsense if we consider it to be genetic. Let's try it out and see:
He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him sinful genes.

The statement makes perfect sense. The same could have been said of Adam.
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/26/05 02:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Phil N. D'blanc:
The Victorian usage of the word "propensity" is often missaplied today in SDA circles.

Here is Webster's two meaning:

1.a natural inclination or tendency; bent

2.[Obscure] favorable inclination; bias (for)


The first sounds applicable to genetic and/or learned twists in personality.

But the other, being the old usage, I feel the one EGW would have used, appears to be a matter of decision and will, a relish, attraction or enjoyment. This Christ could not have had toward any sin.

I think this should be looked at again.

Roseangels: Apparently you feel that Christ took the nature of Adam before his fall, correct?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/26/05 08:59 PM

quote:
The first sounds applicable to genetic and/or learned twists in personality.(emphasis mine)
Ikan,

Ellen White says that Adam’s "posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience". So the word propensities here refers to something with which human beings are born.

What I believe is that, whatever Ellen White meant by "sinful nature", this doesn't include sinful (selfish) propensities, inclinations or tendencies. Can't we see that while love is the divine nature, selfishness is the satanic nature? How could Christ be born with something satanic in Himself?
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/26/05 09:05 PM

EGW would hav eused both definitions, apparently, the meaning having to do with the subject.
Thanks for a partial response; how about the full response?:

" Apparently you feel that Christ took the nature of Adam before his fall, correct?"

Will you elaborate please, Roseangela?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/27/05 04:23 AM

R: As I said in the past, just because Ellen White said that Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary and recommended the article he wrote in The Day-Star Extra, this doesn’t mean I have to accept his shut-door views and other errors he defends in this article. Just because she recommended the book Daniel and Revelation of Uriah Smith, this doesn’t mean I have to accept all that is written there; and the same is true of Waggoner or any other she may have recommended or said they had light on a certain subject. There is a great difference between qualified and full endorsement.

T: My point was that she specifically recommended their teaching on the human nature of Christ, and she preached it side by side with them.

quote:
Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature. (RH 2/18/90)
Now Ellen White was preaching along side of Jones and Waggoner, and she was being questioned regarding statements that had been being made regarding the nature of Christ. What was Waggoner's position?

quote:
A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5. (Christ and His Rightouesness "God Manifest in the Flesh")
So she was speaking side by side with Waggoner and Jones, and she defended *their* views on the human nature of Christ (their being all three of them). It's inconceivable that she had a different view of Christ's nature than Jones and Waggoner had.

R: So, I don’t have to make reinterpretations of Ellen White’s words to make her views fit those of others.

T: That's true. Her views fit those of Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott who she explicitly endorsed on the subject of Christ's human nature, and of Haskell, who she implicitly endorsed, so there's no need to make reinterpretations of her views. The idea that her views were somehow different than every other SDA who was preaching and writing on the subject contemporaneously is absurd.

R: Whatever Ellen White meant by saying that Christ assumed our sinful nature, this of course excludes sinful propensities, and she is very clear about this.

T: Well of course. Christ never sinned. No SDA has held this position.

R: She says that while Adam’s posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience, not for one moment was there in Christ an evil propensity. (So propensities are something with which human beings are born).

T: Apparently Baker was teaching that Christ had sinned. She makes clear that Christ never sinned. Here's the paragraph:

quote:
Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.
I put in bold the comments which clarify the argument that Christ did not sin, unlike Adam, who did. Apparently Baker was teaching that because Christ took our nature, He sinned. But while Christ took our heredity, He never sinned. That's EGW's point. See how she says "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." i.e., this is equivalent: "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but He didn't." To take this as meaning "He could have sinner; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there a bad gene in Him" is non-sensical both in terms of being a sentence which makes sense, and in context, where she is arguing that Christ never sinned. We simply don't say "Never for one moment was there is so-and-so a bad gene." This would imply that having a bad gene is something dependent on time. Sinning is something which one can do at one time, while not at another. Having a bad gene is not. Either you have it, or you don't. It doesn't make sense to qualify it with the phrase "not for one moment". The statement would simply by: "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but He didn't inherit any evil propensities." This would be a logical sentence, although it would contradict her use of the phrase "evil propensities" which always has to do with sinning, not heredity.

At any rate, we shouldn't be discussing a private letter of hers anyway if we want to follow her counsel, as well as use common sense. We don't know what Baker was teaching, so we don't know the context of her counsel. The definitive work on her Christology is the Desire of Ages, where she wrote, among other things:

quote:
In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation. (DA 117)
This is clearly the post-lapsarian position (note "moral worth") and is in perfect harmony with what Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, and every other contermporary SDA who spoke on Christology presented.

R: Some other texts confirming what she says in the Baker letter:

He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family. He did not have a mere semblance of a body, but He took human nature, participating in the life of humanity.--Letter 97, 1898. {7ABC 462.2}

T: The phrase "taint of sin" here is refering to Christ's divine nature, as the following quotes bring out:

quote:
What a sight was this for Heaven to look upon? Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition (1SM 253)
.

quote:
Though He had no taint of sin upon His character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity (3SM 134)
R: In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. -- The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.

T: She always uses the term "sinfulness" to refer to man's perfomance, not his genetic material.

Old Tom:This statement is absolute nonsense if we consider it to be genetic. Let's try it out and see:
He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him sinful genes.

R: The statement makes perfect sense. The same could have been said of Adam.

T: No, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Nobody talks like this. Having bad genes is not dependent on time. It's an on/off thing.

You didn't respond to the statements I quoted. For your convenience, I'll requote them:

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. (DA 49)
Note the sentence in bold. Christ accepted the law of heredity, which is shown in the history of His ancestors. Not a very flattering histroy, but He accepted it, just like we must accept our own family histories.

quote:
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." (BE 9/3/00)
It would difficult to imagine a clearer statement of the post-lapsarian position than this.

There was a crisis referred to as the Holy Flesh movement where the theology was like this:
1) Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
2) We must be sinless like Christ was
3) Therefore we must have a sinless human nature like Christ had (They believed this was accomplished by a special Pentecostal type experience).

To meet this heresy, the Adventists argued that 1) was false. Stephen Haskell wrote to Ellen White:

quote:
When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.
Ellen White approved of what Haskell was doing. If the Holy Flesh theology was correct as far as 1) was concerned, they wouldn't have attacked it at that point.

Besides Haskell, Waggoner was also employed to counteract this false teaching. He spoke about it at the 1901 General Conference session. He also attacked it at the base, point 1). Ellen White was there and heard him speak. It would have been dishonest of her to allow these statements to remain if they were false.

In 1896 EGW endorsed Prescott as strongly as she had been endorsing Jones and Waggoner. Ellen White heard Prescott preach in Avondale a sermon called "The Word Became Flesh". Here's an excerpt:

quote:
So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside.
EGW said of this sermon:

quote:
In the evening Professor Prescott gave a most valuable lesson, precious as gold. The tent was full, and many stood outside. All seemed to be fascinated with the word, as he presented the truth in lines so new to those not of our faith. Truth was separated from error, and made, by the divine Spirit, to shine like precious jewels. (1/7/96)
Prescott's sermon, the entire sermon, was a sermon about Christ's taking the fallen nature of Adam. Ellen White heard the sermon personally, and proclaimed it "truth separated from error." The sermon was about nothing else except the nature of Christ. It's impossible to not see this as endorsing the view on the nature of Christ Prescott was presenting (I just presented a small portion of the sermon, but can present much more if desired).

Not only Prescott, Jones, Waggoner, Haskell and Ellen G. White herself, but every SDA who wrote on the subject of Christology until around 1947 presented the same view. I could quote from dozens of authors presenting the same view, many of which were contemporaries of EGW. She presented the same view, and endorsed those who presented that view. There's simply no way she could have held the pre-lapsarian view. In addition to contradicting what she wrote, it would have been totally dishonest of her to have given the endorsements she did and behaved the way she did if she did not share the views of all those around her who were presenting what they understood to be her view as well. Take a look at the Haskell letter to her: "When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity ..." Haskell understood Ellen White had the same view he did, and indeed, how could he do otherwise when Adventists were united on this.
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/27/05 12:39 PM

Roseangela This classing of Jones and Waggoner with Crosier or U.Smith is fruitless. I have seen limp attempts at this from Andrews thesis papers for post grads. It's an old game.

She called J&W, "messengers of God", endorses them over 200 times in writing as well as toured and preached in tandem, on the paltform with them for three years!

She mentioned Crosier's booklet twice, as I recall, and the R&H publishing company had to heavily edit U.Smith's "Daniel and Revelation" book because it taught that Christ was not God and was a created being!

I see a vast differnce between these men, read them, own their books in original copies and facsimilies and make my judgments from that.

But the long and short of it is: you stated earlier that you did not own/do not read Jones or Waggoner. Therefore, how can you possible know what they taught?
Hearsay?
Revelation?

Trusting to other scholars' opinions is a risky business, at best.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 06:25 AM

quote:
She called J&W, "messengers of God", endorses them over 200 times in writing as well as toured and preached in tandem, on the paltform with them for three years!
Actually over 1,000 times!
Posted By: Claudia Thompson

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 12:07 AM

Well I don't know if this'll help or not...

Child Guidance, page 490, paragraph 4
Chapter Title: Leading Little Children to Christ
"Children of eight, ten, or twelve years are old enough to be addressed on the subject of personal religion. Do not teach your children with reference to some future period when they shall be old enough to repent and believe the truth. If properly instructed, very young children may have correct views of their state as sinners and of the way of salvation through Christ."
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 12:35 AM

People,
The debate of your favorite pioneer is intriguing and fun, but lets keep on topic here. All started out on the right path and some went off into other directions contrary to the Advent movement.
I have my favorite pioneers as well (Ellen White, Uriah Smith, J.N. Andrews, Joseph Bates, James White, & Stephen Haskell), but I dont go around using them as a mouth piece, but study what they have written and cross reference with the Bible, & SOP, and if it is not consistent then it must be discarded. Maybe, just maybe this can be in the Looking at our Pioneers forum [Big Grin] . It is worthy of study for a historical point of view, and I know I will learn something and hope others will benefit as well. Hey maybe we can even generate awareness of our historical roots! [Smile] Those are my thoughts on the particular pattern I am seeing here.
What do you think?
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 01:11 AM

I was referencing the pioneers to substantiate the point that the SDA church, and Ellen White in particular, was post-lapsarian, which was on-topic to the subject of the thread. A thread on whether or not we are born sinners is bound to involve a discussion of Christology. So I'm not seeing what's off-topic.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 01:38 AM

There has been more than a few times of where one of the pioneers was referenced, and highly recommended because Sister White endorsed them. Now the same theme keeps on popping up, so it does go off topic because the discussion goes into that so and so author was highly endorsed by Sister White, so it must be good.
The topic is about being a born sinner, born sinning etc, not the dynamics of so and so pioneer. Also since I am not a pastor, and have no clue what lapsarian is maybe you could explain exactly what it is. I think it would be a fine addition to have more pioneers and what they wrote with references in the link I posted above. The more access we have to information about our history, and how we can build on the platform the better.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 03:44 AM

Ok: I have opened a topic on Waggoner and Jones in the "Looking at Our Pioneers" topic.

I'm getting a bit dizzy with all this highfalutin lingo here. It's fascinating, but.....

My thoughts are:

If two HIV+ adults have a child, the child will have the disease. The symptoms of this disease will soon or later develop.

Sin is a disease; sinning is the symptoms. The disease must be irradicated for the symptoms to stop.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 06:10 AM

I mentioned Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and Haskell because they were contemporaries of EGW and taught that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall (post-lapsarian, lapse = fall). This was to make the point that there's no way she could have been pre-lapsarian (Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall) because none of her contemporaries were, and she endorsed several of them regarding the very subject of Christology.

The subject of whether or not we are born sinners is bound to involve the human nature of Christ. They are intimately connected. If we are born sinners (i.e. our natures make us sinners in and of itself), then Christ could not have taken our nature, because then He would have been born a sinner, which is impossible.
Posted By: Will

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 09:20 AM

You're right Tom. In the back of my mind the thought came to me a while ago that if we are born sinners, then Christ who was made like unto His brethren who knew no sin was a born sinner, and it didn't sit to well with me to say the least. He was made sin for us. Yet it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren. Some things my mind can't comprehend.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 04:39 PM

That’s the whole point. If we are born sinners, and if Christ was born with a spiritual sinful nature like ours, He was also born a sinner, and, therefore, couldn’t be our Saviour. If, on the other hand, we are not born sinners, this means babies and little children don’t need a Saviour.

"The offerings brought to the sanctuary were to be without spot or blemish. Had one stain of sin rested upon our Redeemer, his sacrifice would not have secured the salvation of man." {ST, July 15, 1880 par. 12}

Would it be correct to affirm that a selfish nature is not a stain of sin, if David himself said, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalms 51:5)?

"Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he was a son of Adam, like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin, but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing His will."{SR 57.1}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/28/05 07:09 PM

quote:
That’s the whole point. If we are born sinners, and if Christ was born with a spiritual sinful nature like ours, He was also born a sinner, and, therefore, couldn’t be our Saviour.
This is not SDA theology. SDA's taught for 100 years that Christ took our sinful nature, that He overcame in that nature, and that we can overcome by faith as He overcame. Ellen White used this exact line of thought dozens of times, and it appears in our books, magaizines and Sabbath School lessons unanimously until 1947. EGW, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, Wilcox, Daniels, Fifield, Nichol, and many others all taught the same thing.

Here's some more from the sermon which EGW witnessed and proclaimed as "truth unmingled with error"

quote:
The theme of redemption will be the science and the song of the eternal ages, and well may it occupy our minds during our short stay here. There is no portion of this great theme that makes such a demand on our minds in order to appreciate it in any degree, as the subject we shall study tonight,—The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Through Him all things became; now He Himself became. He who had all glory With the Father, now lays aside His glory and becomes flesh. He lays aside His divine mode of existence, and takes the human mode of existence, and God becomes manifest in the flesh. This truth is the very foundation of all truth. Let us consider, first, what kind of flesh, for this is the very foundation of this question as it relates to us personally (Heb. 2:14—18, quoted).

"That through death, being made subject to death, 'taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He might, by His dying, destroy him that had the power of death [Heb. 2: 16, quoted] . . So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside...

"God made man a little lower than the an­gels, but man fell much lower by his sin. Now he is far separated from God; but he is to be brought back again. Jesus Christ came for that work: and in order to do it, He came, not where man was before he fell, but where man was af­ter he fell. . Jesus Christ comes right down to where he is, and meets him there. He takes his flesh and becomes a brother to him. Jesus Christ is a brother to us in the flesh; He was born into the family. .

"He came and took the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh. . 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. .

"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 wondrously 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. . " 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a man in heaven now,­ the man Christ Jesus,—bearing our human na­ture; but it is no longer a flesh of sin; it is glori­fied. Having come here and lived in a flesh of sin, He died; and in that He died, He died unto sin; and in that He lives, He lives unto God. When He died, He freed Himself from the flesh of sin, and He was raised glorified. . Jesus Christ, our own brother, the man Christ Jesus, is in heaven, living to make intercession for us

"This union of the divine and the human has brought Jesus Christ very near to us. There is not one too low down for Christ to be there with him. He identified Himself completely with this human family. . One version reads, 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My little brothers, ye have done it unto Me.' Christ looks upon everyone of the human fam­ily as His. When humanity suffers, he suffers. He is humanity; He has joined Himself to this family. .

“Jesus Christ thus united Himself with the human family, that He might be with us by be­ing in us, just as God was with Him by being in Him. The very purpose of His work was that He might be in us, and that, as He represented the Father, so the children, the Father, and the El­der Brother might be united in Him. .

" 'Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world' (Matt. 28:20). By being in us, He is with us alway, and that this might be pos­sible, that He might be in us, He came and took our flesh. This also is the way in which the ho­liness of Jesus works. He had a holiness that enabled Him to come and dwell in sinful flesh, and help sinful flesh by His presence in it; and that is what He did, so that when He was raised from the dead, He was glorified. His purpose was that having purified sinful flesh by His ind­welling presence, He might now come and pu­rify sinful flesh in us, and glorify us. He 'shall change our Vile body. that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself' (Phil. 3:21) . .

"Let us enter into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was here. He came and lived here that we might through Him reflect the image of God. This is the very heart of Chris­tianity . .

"By following where He leads, we shall know what Christian experience is, and what it is to dwell in the light of His presence. I tell you, this is a wondrous truth. Human language cannot put more into human thought or language than is said in these words: 'The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,' This is our salvation. . Nothing short of it will meet what we have to meet,—the world, the flesh, and the devil. But He that is for us is mightier than he that is against us. Let us have in our daily lives Jesus Christ, 'the Word' that 'became flesh,' "—W. W. Prescott, Sermon given October 31, 1895

R: If, on the other hand, we are not born sinners, this means babies and little children don’t need a Saviour.

T: This in no way follows. Apart from Christ, the human race would be lost. We all have sinful flesh, and apart from the grace of God, we can do nothing but sin in this flesh. The same thing was true of Christ. He overcame by faith. He had no advantage over us.

There's a statement from the SOP to the effect that had Christ had any advantage over us in our temptations, the adversary would have made capital of that. Something like that. Maybe Phil knows it.

R:
"The offerings brought to the sanctuary were to be without spot or blemish. Had one stain of sin rested upon our Redeemer, his sacrifice would not have secured the salvation of man." {ST, July 15, 1880 par. 12}

Would it be correct to affirm that a selfish nature is not a stain of sin, if David himself said, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalms 51:5)?

T: You're arguing in a circle. Here's Waggoner's understanding of this text.

quote:
A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.

The following statement in the book of Hebrews is very clear on this point:

For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. ["For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." Revised Version.] Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Heb. 2:16-18

Now EGW preached side by side with him (and Jones) and presented the same theology, and defended *their* theology when she was questioned about it.

quote:
Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. (RH 2/18/90)
As I have pointed out several times, the following statement expresses clearly the post-lapsarian idea (that Christ took the nature of fallen Adam)

quote:
It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." (BE 9/3/00)
Note the contrast:
1) Adam -- no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil
2) But Christ

The clear implication is that Christ had corrupt principles and tendencies to evil. There's no other way to understand what she wrote. Obviously these things could not be in His character, or that make Him sinful, and they weren't a part of His character; they were in His flesh.

The following is also clear that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall.

quote:
The Creator and the creature, the nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus,--the Son of God and the Son of man.
R:
"Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he was a son of Adam, like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin, but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing His will."{SR 57.1}

T: Christ accepted our heredity. He inherited no more natural goodness than did Cain. He overcame in our flesh, accepting our heridity.

quote:
"It was in the order of God that Christ should take on the form and nature of fallen man. "(4SG 115).
quote:
"His human nature was created: it did not even possess angelic powers. It was human, identical to our own:”—(3SM 129)
quote:
"The great work of redemption could be car­ried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. . He would take man's fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam ' " (RH 2/24/74).
These are just a couple of quotes. Many more could be given. But the easiest way to see what Ellen White's view was is simply by noting that *every* SDA held the position that Christ took our fallen nature until 1947. That's simple! She had the same theology as every other SDA that wrote on Christology, and she explictily endorsed those who presented that theology, preached it herself, and defended it alongside Jones and Waggoner, with whom she was preaching, and who shared the same views.
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/29/05 09:55 AM

Roseangela So do I gather from your posts that you feel that Christ came to earth in a pre-fallen state, the state as Adam had before his fall?

I'd really appreciate a simple yes or no, if you will, please.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/29/05 05:40 PM

Tom,

Truth is progressive, and God is patient with His people. Only about twenty years after the crucifixion did God correct the wrong notion of the apostles that gentiles weren’t acceptable to God. From 1844 to 1888 the pioneers believed Christ was a created being, and God never commanded Ellen White to correct them. Even though Waggoner in 1888 began to change the course of things, it would be unreasonable to expect him to have a complete understanding of either Christ’s divinity (about which he still held some mistakes) or of Christ’s humanity. But the main thrust of his preaching was correct, and the church needed his message, and Ellen White gladly endorsed it.
As to the sermon you mentioned, the preacher is correct, and emphasizes a biblical truth - that the Word was made flesh, and that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Christ obviously didn’t come in the body of Adam, but He came in our weakened body, which is a result of sin, and in which we sin - although He Himself was without sin.
Now, let’s leave the pioneers aside, and go back to the subject itself.

It’s clear that babies are born sinners, otherwise they wouldn’t need a Saviour. And Ellen White says clearly that Seth ”was born in sin” (SR 57), although she also says clearly that Christ “was born without a taint of sin” (7A BC 462). “He had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/30/05 06:08 AM

Ikan,
I don’t know if I can reply with a simple yes or no. I believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the physical and mental or emotional aspects, but I don’t believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the spiritual aspect. Being born selfish is being born polluted, is being born in sin _ and Christ was without sin.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 06/29/05 11:19 PM

R: Tom,

Truth is progressive, and God is patient with His people. Only about twenty years after the crucifixion did God correct the wrong notion of the apostles that gentiles weren’t acceptable to God. From 1844 to 1888 the pioneers believed Christ was a created being, and God never commanded Ellen White to correct them.

T: There was confusion on the issue. Ellen White made a clear statement in 1898 I think it was, several in fact, which settled the issue. However, there was no confusion regarding the human nature of Christ. Ellen White always taught that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall, as did all SDA's until 1947. She wrote clearly and extensively on this subject. You'd have to explain to me the logic of God's correcting the views of Ellen White and her colleagues by way of SDA's studying at non-SDA institutions and bringing in new doctrines. That seems to me a strange way for God to work (although God does do things which appear odd to us, but this would be particularly odd) and there's the problem that EGW was so staunchly post-lapsarian (post-fall). This isn't an issue she wrote about in passing, but there are at least more than 400 references in her writings to Christ's taking the nature of Adam after the fall (boy, that's a mouthful -- hence "post-lapsarian", or as the Brazilians say "post" and "pre" -- even easier, I think I'll do that).

R: Even though Waggoner in 1888 began to change the course of things, it would be unreasonable to expect him to have a complete understanding of either Christ’s divinity (about which he still held some mistakes) or of Christ’s humanity.

T: There's not a soul who's ever lived who had a complete understanding of Christ's divinity or humanity. That doesn't mean that God them light on the subject. God clearly did, and Ellen White just as clearly endorsed that light, as well as preached it side by side with them.

She said that letters had been coming to her asking how Christ could be post, because that would make Him a sinner (your position). She explained why Christ had to be pre. This is very clear.

quote:
Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper.
The common non-SDA position was pre (and still is, which is where we got it from), and so it is natural that EGW should be asked how Christ could be post, and equally natural that they should use the same logic you do (He couldn't have been post because then He would have been a sinner). This is the same logic the Holy Flesh people used. But in every case SDA's have explained why this logic is spurious. That was our position for decades, and Ellen White affirmed specifically those who spoke officially for the denomination in dealing with these issues.

R:
But the main thrust of his preaching was correct, and the church needed his message, and Ellen White gladly endorsed it.

"By following where He leads, we shall know what Christian experience is, and what it is to dwell in the light of His presence. I tell you, this is a wondrous truth. Human language cannot put more into human thought or language than is said in these words: 'The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,' This is our salvation.

As to the sermon you mentioned, the preacher is correct, and emphasizes a biblical truth - that the Word was made flesh, and that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Christ obviously didn’t come in the body of Adam, but He came in our weakened body, which is a result of sin, and in which we sin - although He Himself was without sin.

T: When W. W. Prescott wrote that Christ's taking our flesh is our salvation, he meant His taking *our* flesh. That is, fallen, sinful flesh, not the flesh of Adam before the fall, but after the fall, flesh which has the same tendencies to sin as ours has. That's what Prescott explicitly said. That was the the topic of his sermon. For example, the paragraph above the one you cited says:

quote:
"Let us enter into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was here. He came and lived here that we might through Him reflect the image of God. This is the very heart of Chris­tianity.
Their whole argument (they being Prescott, Jones, Waggoner and White, as well as every other SDA who spoke on the subject) was that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature, the nature of Adam after the fall, in order to reach us where we are and make it possible for us live as Christ lived. Ellen White herself must have expressed this idea dozens of times. If you take away the premise, the whole edifice falls down.

The topic of the sermon that Prescott preached, and which EGW endorsed, was not that Christ became flesh as in some flesh, but that He became flesh such as our flesh is; that is, that He took the nature of Adam after the fall. He said that as clearly as possible:

quote:
So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside.
To try to make this as if it were simply saying that Christ became a human being is, being generous, feeble.

A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and Ellen G. White each wrote along the same lines, emphasizing that Christ's taking fallen, sinful human nature is indespensible truth. You can't take away the center point of their theology, and say the main thrust was correct. That was the main thrust!

R:
Now, let’s leave the pioneers aside, and go back to the subject itself.

T: This is a bit exasperating. You cannot do that. Ellen White worked side by side with them, preached with them, endorsed their work. Given she said the same thing they did, and endorsed them when they said the same things she did, there's no reason to set them aside. This is the clearest evidence that her teaching was post. If she was pre then you have to assume she was stupid, because
a) She didn't realize what the subject of Prescott's sermon was.
b) She didn't realize what Haskell meant when he said "When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.”
c) She didn't understand the Holy Flesh theory when she wrote " none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric. none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric." The starting premise of the Holy Flesh theory was that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
d) She didn't realize what Waggoner was preaching at the 1901 General Conference session which she attended when he explained how the Holy Flesh doctrine was wrong because it was founded on Christ's having taken human nature.
e) She didn't realize what Waggoner, Jones and herself were preaching when they were preaching side to side in 1890.

R:
It’s clear that babies are born sinners, otherwise they wouldn’t need a Saviour. And Ellen White says clearly that Seth ”was born in sin” (SR 57), although she also says clearly that Christ “was born without a taint of sin” (7A BC 462). “He had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).

T: We're falling into a disappointing pattern her where I respond to your arguments, but you simply ignore mine. The expressions you point out, or similar ones you might point out in the future, are without exception dealing with either Christ's divinity or His sinlessness (i.e. never having sinned). That Christ took our fallen, sinful nature is a repeated emphasis in her writings. For example:

quote:
[Adam] was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." (BE 9/3/00)
Adam had not corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But Christ bore the likeness of sinful flesh. Note the "but". Adam: no corrupt principles; no tendencies to evil. But Christ.

This is clear.

quote:
The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man.
This is also clear. The divine nature of God and the human nature of fallen man are united in Christ: "Adam, the transgressor".

In the Desire of Ages we have not simply isolated sentences which can be taken out of context and misunderstood by not understanding how she uses terms like "taint of sin" but whole paragraphs not only explaining that Christ took fallen nature, but why:

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)
Note the emphasized part. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. What can this refer to but sin? This is the heredity Christ took, so "share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."

I could give many more examples, but this is already very long, so I'll stop here.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/01/05 06:37 AM

Tom,

There was no confusion on the issue. The pioneers were clearly anti-trinitarian and arian, and Ellen white never corrected them, although she, of course, knew the truth, and recognized and endorsed it when she saw it in Waggoner’s message in 1888, when his preponderant emphasis was in Christ’s self-existence, embodying “all the fullness of the Godhead”. However, not even Waggoner understood the full truth, for he still held to views such as that Christ was the Son of God “by birth”, and that He “’proceeded forth and came from God’, but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man” (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 9 & 12). Ellen White never pointed out these mistakes directly, but made statements in The Desire of Ages which corrected them, showing that Christ has always existed and His life is underived.

Of course God did not need to correct Ellen White’s views about Christ’s human nature, for He Himself revealed the truth to her.

About the holy flesh movement, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. What its adepts defended was that it was possible to obtain holy flesh in this world, that is, perfection of body, which would lead to an impossibility to sin. But the flesh of all of us, including Jesus, is marked by “physical, mental, and moral degeneracy”.

Now, this is not the first discussion I participate on this subject; I have participated in several other discussions, and in all of them quotes are thrown against each other, and nothing fruitful results of this. So, I will resist the temptation to engage in this type of discussion. To me the core issue involved here is that all of us are born in sin. Ellen White is clear about that and there is no way to get around it. And if Christ was born exactly like us, in sin, this would constitute Him an imperfect offering, disqualifying Him to be our Saviour.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/01/05 02:24 AM

(Getting this stuff to post is like debugging code. Fortunately I do this for a living, but it would be nice if it said something other than it can't post a message with a parenthesis in a html tab. That's like the web pages which say "Page cannot be displayed." How about something useful, like an error message and a line number? Oh well, enough programming complaining)

R: Tom,

There was no confusion on the issue. The pioneers were clearly anti-trinitarian and arian, and Ellen white never corrected them, although she, of course, knew the truth, and recognized and endorsed it when she saw it in Waggoner’s message in 1888, when his preponderant emphasis was in Christ’s self-existence, embodying “all the fullness of the Godhead”.

T: No confusion on what issue? You're talking about Christ's divinity here, I guess as some sort of analogy. I think you're trying to make the argument that Ellen White held secret truths that only she had and no one else knew about and which she made known as she saw fit(?). And this is what she did regarding Christ's divinity, so it's reasonable to assume she also did this with Christ's humanity(?) Am I getting this?

What makes you think "of course Ellen White knew the truth"? There's no evidence whatsoever that she understood the Bible better than any of her collegues. In fact, the evidence was the reverse. She was a prophet, not a Bible scholar. She didn't know Greek or Hebrew or soteriology, eschatology or any of that stuff. She was a humble servant used wonderfully by God, but there's no reason to think she had a clearer or better understanding than others did on topics. I already mentioned that she said Waggoner understood righteousness by faith better than she did. Here's the direct quote:

quote:
Sister White told me of her Guide in Europe, who had stretched His hands out, and said, "There are mistakes being made on both sides in this controversy." Then she added that the "Law in Galatians" is not the real issue of the Conference. The real issue is Righteousness by faith! "E.J. Waggoner can teach righteousness by faith more clearly than I can," said Sister White. "Why, Sister White," I said, "do you mean to say that E. J. Waggoner can teach it better than you can, with all your experience?" Sister White replied, "Yes, the Lord has given him special light on that question. I have been wanting to bring it out more clearly, but I could not have brought it out as clearly as he did. But when he brought it out at Minneapolis, I recognized it." (Interview of J. S. Washburn, a delegate to the 1880 GC, 6/4/50)
Now this is not in the least surprising. I think from your comments perhaps you have an odd understanding of the prophetic office.

Regarding Christ's divinity, this was not a clear cut issue. The Seventh-day Adventist church never expressed the idea that Christ was not fully divine. There was no consensus on this point. Waggoner was clear regarding Christ's divinity as early as 1888 as the following makes clear:

quote:
Before passing to some of the practical lessons that are to be learned from these truths, we must dwell for a few moments upon an opinion that is honestly held by many who would not for any consideration willingly dishonour Christ, but who, through that opinion, do actually deny His Divinity. It is the idea that Christ is a created being, who, through the good pleasure of God, was elevated to His present lofty position. No one who holds this view can possibly have any just conception of the exalted position which Christ really occupies. (Christ and His Righteousness)
Well, that's not the best quote, but it's adequate. Waggoner was clear that Christ was divine, the Creator, and explains that we must understand His divinity and creative power to properly understood righteousness by faith. The book "The Everlasting Covenant" explains this well, as well as in other places. I can dig them out if necessary. At any rate the point is that He was clear on the divinity of Christ many years before the statements by EGW in 1898 which finally set the issue to rest.

R: However, not even Waggoner understood the full truth, for he still held to views such as that Christ was the Son of God “by birth”, and that He “’proceeded forth and came from God’, but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man” (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 9 & 12). Ellen White never pointed out these mistakes directly, but made statements in The Desire of Ages which corrected them, showing that Christ has always existed and His life is underived.

T: I don't see how this is relevant, but I should point out that it's not at all clear, at least not to me, that these were errors. Basically Waggoner was just quoting Scripture, which does say that Christ proceeded forth from the Father. This doesn't mean there was a time when Christ did not exist, and Waggoner did not say that. Some have interpreted what he wrote to mean that, but that's just an interpretation. Another interpretation is that when there were no other beings in existence but God, there was no reason for Christ to proceed forth from the Father, but when the Godhead decided to create, then Christ proceeded forth from the Father. Really, this is all speculative, as Waggoner wrote very little about this.

On the other hand, Waggoner wrote scores and scores of pages regarding Christ's having taken our fallen human nature, and there's no doubt as to his position on this, nor is there doubt that Ellen White agreed with it, since she explicitly endorsed and preached it side by side with him, and defended their (i.e. hers and Waggoners) views when quesitoned.

R: Of course God did not need to correct Ellen White’s views about Christ’s human nature, for He Himself revealed the truth to her.

T: This doesn't make sense to me. First of all, before God revealed truth to her, Ellen White had views, her mind not being an empty slate upon which God would write. She had erroneous views on a number of things, and God did reveal these errors to her as needed.

However, regarding the human nature of Christ, she always held that Christ took the nature of man after the fall, which is correct, so there is no error for God to correct.

R: About the holy flesh movement, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. What its adepts defended was that it was possible to obtain holy flesh in this world, that is, perfection of body, which would lead to an impossibility to sin. But the flesh of all of us, including Jesus, is marked by “physical, mental, and moral degeneracy”.

T: Here's a summary of holy flesh ideas:

quote:
Further false doctrines that Haskell and others exposed included: (1) the impartation of the Holy Spirit was primarily for physical manifestations and miracles rather than character preparation for service; (2) perfectionism (understood as “holy flesh”) in the sense of not being able to sin because no temptation now arises from within; (3) Jesus was born with “sinless flesh;” (4) the Holy Spirit insulated Jesus at conception from the law of heredity; (5) sealed people will not die; and (6) sealed people are healed physically as well as spiritually.(http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt18.html#Holy%20Flesh%20Movement)
The foundation is that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall. The argument goes like this:

1) Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall.
2) We need to be sinless like Christ was.
3) Therefore we need sinless flesh like Christ had.

The way that Haskell met this was to point out that we (SDA's) do not believe that Christ took that nature of Adam before the fall, but after the fall.

quote:
When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.
It seems to me that only looking away from the evidence could lead one to think that this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. S. N. Haskell wrote to Ellen White saying "When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned." which is just what you say. You have pitted yourself against S. N. Haskell and Ellen White and put yourself on the side of the Holy Flesh people, so far as the nature of Christ is concerned. You have taken their position and their argument.

Waggoner also argued against the Holy Flesh ideas, and argued the same way Haskell did, by attacking their idea that Christ did not take the flesh of Adam after the fall. Ellen White witnessed this and coutenanced it. She said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.

It's clear that Haskell and White were united in this.

R: Now, this is not the first discussion I participate on this subject; I have participated in several other discussions, and in all of them quotes are thrown against each other, and nothing fruitful results of this. So, I will resist the temptation to engage in this type of discussion. To me the core issue involved here is that all of us are born in sin. Ellen White is clear about that and there is no way to get around it. And if Christ was born exactly like us, in sin, this would constitute Him an imperfect offering, disqualifying Him to be our Saviour.

T: What you are saying is not SDA theology. Nothing like what you wrote appears *anywhere* in *any* SDA publication until 1947. Ellen White never wrote anything like what you are saying. All you can do is do like the SDA Bible Commentary did and take little bits and snippets out of context. But the evidence is clear:

1) All SDA's, all of them, that wrote about the subject of Christ's humanity presented the position that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall, until 1947.
2) Ellen White specifically endorsed this teaching:
a) She said that letters had come to her, preaching side by side along with Waggoner, regarding Christ's taking fallen human nature. She explained why this view was correct.
b) She endorsed a specific sermon which was specifically about the very subject that Christ took the fallen nature of man in the strongest possible language, a sermon which she heard personally.
c) She worked alongside Haskell and Waggoner, among others, who attacked the Holy Flesh movement by attacking their false views that Christ took that nature of Adam before the fall.
d) She explained her position in paragraphs (not out of context snippest, but long developed reasoning) in the Desire of Ages, her book about Christ's life.

Also, you have not addressed the statements I have quoted repeatedly:

quote:
[Adam] was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." (BE 9/3/00)
How can this possibly be interpreted in any other way than that Christ had corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in His flesh? How?

This one too:

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)
I do agree with you regarding the lack of fruit in discussing this subject. Those whom I have talked with have refused to consider the evidence.

The book "Touched With His Feelings" by Zurcher provides a lot more documentation to the points I have been making.

Just the simple fact that there were no SDA's that held to the position that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall until several generations after Ellen White's lifetime should be proof enough of the right position. This wasn't some obscure topic of which little was said or written, but a subject upon which hundreds of pages were written. It's simply inconceivable that Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott were wrong about this and God continued to send messages of approval saying they were right.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/01/05 08:57 AM

quote:
Rosangela said: I believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the physical and mental or emotional aspects, but I don’t believe Christ had a fallen nature in regard to the spiritual aspect.
This is true.

Tom, Your use of the term “sinful nature” is without discrimination. Such use will end in quagmire. Your lack of making a distinction between flesh and spirit is unacceptable. Without this distinction there can be no understanding. I contend that usage of “nature” for “flesh” is erroneous for definition; and if one truly understands it for such, then divine nature must mean "divine flesh"; and this is wrong.

The first point is: "hamartias sarx" = sinful flesh, no problem
The next point is: “hamartias phusis” = sinful nature, this derived from opposite meaning of
The reference point: “theios phusis” = divine nature.

Please note that “phusis” is entirely different than “sarx”. Do not interchange them.

‘Sinful flesh’ is easy, simply put, inherited and cultivated tendencies residing in the body. It is our physical condition or circumstance. This part is a non-issue in salvation. This will be dealt with at resurrection or translation. God can zap this physical change without any effort.

‘Sinful nature’ on the other hand, would be the chosen and cultivated tendencies, position, principles, and values residing in the spirit. This is the problem; the disease; the sin master.

The reason why this is more difficult to discern is because in the sinner, the spirit is subject to the flesh (carnal mind), and so the two appear as one. Nevertheless the difference is vital and the division must occur if one will be saved.

‘Sinful nature’ needs to be understood as the opposite of ‘divine nature’ as spoken in 2Pe 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And in context of Rom 1:3-4
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

What is important here is that difference which is seen in Christ. He inherited our sinful flesh as any of us do, but he did not inherit our sinful nature (spirit), rather he retained his spirit (divine nature), for he was declared to be the son of God according to spirit. It is this that he gives us (divine nature, spirit) so that we may be sons and daughters of God, and live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

It is this that is spoken in Romans 8:3-9
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For, they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

This is what is meant in John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Sinful nature therefore is the state of the ‘spirit of man’, which is subject to the sinful flesh, and minds the flesh. Here spirit is servant to the flesh. It is a conundrum for the sinner, because he thinks he is free, and does what he wants. That is because he wants to do the things of the flesh. However, when he tries not to do something of the flesh; that is when he will discover his slavery. That is what Romans 7 is about.

Divine nature is the Spirit of God in Christ, in which our spirit is to dwell and he in us. Thus our spirit is set free from being subject to the flesh, to live the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Our flesh then takes its proper place of being servant to spirit. Our spirit is united with God’s spirit, and we are a new creature in Christ. Here there is power and victory over every temptation and sin.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/01/05 09:29 AM

Tom, I shall try to convey the issues in language you are acquainted with.

When referring to a “computer”, you cannot call everything regarding a computer as “electronic apparatus” (‘apparatus’ here will stand for ‘flesh’)

You can call a computer as a whole an “electronic apparatus” without a problem, or you can call the hardware such, but when you are referring to software you must change your terminology. So you must make a difference between “hardware” and “software”. So when you speak of the software it is erroneous to use the expression “electronic apparatus” for software. That would be misleading. You could call it “electronic language” or some such thing. Just as you cannot use the term "apparatus" for software; likewise you cannot use the term "language" for hardware.

So while this is very limiting, nevertheless it will serve the purpose.

“Flesh” would answer to “hardware and bios”
“Nature” would answer to “OS and drivers”

Please note, and do not “hang up” on the fact that EW used “sinful nature” once when she actually meant “sinful flesh”. She had no intention to define or confuse the term.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/02/05 06:53 AM

John, there's no distinction between "sinful flesh" and "sinful nature" is it's traditionally used within SDAism. You're introducing a distinction which most do not have. In fact, you're the first person I've come across to make it.

Consider Romans 8:3

quote:
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
quote:
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man.
quote:
For God has done what the Law could not do, [its power] being weakened by the flesh the entire nature of man without the Holy Spirit]. Sending His own Son in the guise of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, [God] condemned sin in the flesh subdued, overcame, deprived it of its power over all who accept that sacrifice]
This is KJV, NIV and Amplified respectively.

Another example, Heb. 2:14:

quote:
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.
quote:
14Since, therefore, [these His] children share in flesh and blood [in the physical nature of human beings], He [Himself] in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by [going through] death He might bring to nought and make of no effect him who had the power of death--that is, the devil--
quote:
2:14Since the children, as he calls them, are people of flesh and blood, Jesus himself became like them and shared their human nature. He did this so that through his death he might destroy the Devil, who has the power over death,
NIV, Amplified, GNB.

This shows that different translators have translated "sarx" as "nature" and some as "flesh".

The Spirit of Prophesy also uses the terms interchangeably. For example:

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.(DA 49)
Here she speaks of Christ taking the nature of fallen Adam.

quote:
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin that caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright; in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil but when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh. ST 10-17-1900
Here she speaks of Christ taking the sinful flesh of Adam.

quote:
God has given to the world and to angels the evidence of the changeless character of His love. He would part with His only begotten Son, send Him into the world, clothed in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin and to die upon Calvary's cross to make it manifest to men that there is provision in the counsels of heaven for those who believe in Christ, to keep the commandments of God. Aside from Christ, man cannot in spirit and in truth keep one of the commandments of God, but in Christ Jesus the claims of the law are met, because He transforms the nature of man by His grace, creates in the heart a new spiritual life, implants a holy nature, and men become Christlike in character. {14MR 86.1}
Another sinful flesh example.

quote:
The sinful nature of man was weak, and he was prone to the transgression of God's commandments. Man had not the power to do the words of God; that is why Christ came to our world, that He might give him moral power. There was no power in heaven or in earth but the power of Christ that could deliver from the [sentence illegible in original]. He came to meet the difficulty and to remove it. His own arm brought salvation. God sent forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh that He might condemn sin in the flesh and reveal the fact to heaven, to the worlds unfallen and also the fallen world, that through the power of divine grace, through partaking of the divine nature, man need no longer stand under the curse of the law or remain in transgression. {14MR 82.3}
In this statement she uses the terms interchangeably in the same paragraph. The sinful nature of man was weak, so God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Here's a statement from A. T. Jones:

quote:
“And that this is likeness to man as He is in His flesh, sinful nature, and not as He was in His original [heavenly] sinless nature, is made certain by the Word: 'We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suf­fering of death.' Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death; this is what we see Jesus to be, in His place, as man (The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection).
Note the clarification of "flesh" as "sinful nature".

The following is from F. D. Nichols in the book "Answers to Objections"

quote:
'Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all man­kind, Christ was born with a 'sinful nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach 'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour­ that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' (sorry for the funny quoting, but that's the way it was from where I grabbed it)
Here's a statement from an SDA who holds the contrary view that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall:

quote:
"Clearly Jesus did not have a sinful nature; He had no sinful passions or any taint of sin. By contrast, all the rest of us are born into the world with these liabilities. On the surface, at least, this looks like a huge advantage for Christ, and calls into question His ability to be our example. " (Jesus Our Example, Norman Gulley)
Note "sinful nature" is being used as something genetic.

I could quote many, many more of these, John. The fact of the matter is that I *am* using the term "sinful nature" in the way it has been traditionally used by SDA's, so I can't see how I could possibly be causing confusion by using the term in the same way it's customarily been used.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/01/05 10:45 PM

Tom, I did not contend that others have used it so. But there has been confusion as a result, and though many words have been used the meaning has remained uncertain. Modern Bible translators, in taking the liberty to interpret these words in such a way are creating further confusion. I understand that AT Jones, Waggoner, EW, and others used these in various ways seeking to express the message. From the context of the message you will see that the definitions I have given are true.

The definitions I am bringing forth are meaningful. It is a simple principle which arises from scriptures use of the word “nature” (phusis), which must not be confused with “flesh“(sarx).

If we are going to have a clear understanding of the problem of sin as well as the solution of salvation then the remedy must correspond to the malady.

In other words “sinful nature” is the problem; “divine nature” is the solution. In both cases “nature” has to mean the same thing. Christ came to save us from “sinful nature”; to do this he gives us “divine nature”. He did not come to save us from “sinful flesh” (for now), but from “sinful nature” by “divine nature”. He came in “sinful flesh” but with “divine nature”. So we must take hold of his “divine nature” so that we may be victorious in “sinful flesh”. So whatever “divine nature” means, “sinful nature” must be the corresponding definition. If we are changing references of definition when switching from one to the other we will not understand what is happening.

I suppose Tom if you are ready to adopt (at least temporarily) my definitions, we are ready to proceed to understand what this “nomenclature” is referring to. It will be so much easier to understand both the problem and the solution.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/01/05 11:23 PM

John, I'm not comfortable with using "sinful nature" in a different way than "sinful flesh". This is how SDA's have always used it (as well as others), and I've used it that way for many years. If I were to use it in some other way, I would find that most confusing. Perhaps you could suggest some other phrase that conveys the meaning you have in mind.

Words are just a means to an end. I don't think I disagree with your meanings, just your choice of words, (and vice versa -- that is, I don't think you're disagreeing with my meanings, just my words).

So since neither of us likes the use of the phrase "sinful nature" as used by the other, let's avoid it. That's my suggestion. If I use the phrase "fallen nature" is that acceptable as a synonym for "sinful flesh"? I use "sinful nature" to make clear I mean the nature of Adam after the fall, but "fallen nature" makes that clear just as well, so I could use that.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/02/05 01:19 AM

Tom, I understand your problem, but that is part of the problem. We do not need a synonym for "sinful flesh". Sinful flesh is clear by itself.

What we are looking for is an antonym for "divine nature"; because that is the part that needs to be realized.

It is necessary to make a difference between the flesh and the spirit.

So I have a problem with you using sinful nature as a synonym of sinful flesh, because then it would follow that divine nature would be understood as divine flesh which is wrong.

To me it is obvious that sinful nature would answer to divine nature. Do you have a better antonym?

[ July 01, 2005, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: John Boskovic ]
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/02/05 01:26 AM

In your above qotes, except for Nichols (and I do not know what he meant) all the others I understand to be using the terms as I have defined them.

The modern scripture interpretations you quoted (which BTW are not translations, are erroneous).
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/02/05 04:24 AM

Tom,

A happy sabbath to you and to all. Just a quick note about the holy flesh movement. You can find further details about it here:
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll/egw-comp/section14818.htm/book15013.htm/chapter15023.htm

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll/egw-comp/section12951.htm/book13914.htm/chapter13927.htm

The adepts of the movement did not claim that Christ was born with holy flesh, but that He acquired it at the garden of Gethsemane.
And of course Christ could be tempted from within, for appetite is primarily a temptation from within.
Christ had the natural passions of human nature:

"Those who overcome will follow the example of Christ by bringing bodily appetites and passions under the control of enlightened conscience and reason." {Con 74.3}

Christ was subject to the law of heredity, and the power of appetites and passions was much greater at the time He came to the world than when Adam was tempted:

From the time of Adam to that of Christ, self-indulgence had increased the power of the appetites and passions, until they had almost unlimited control.{TSDF 152.2}

That's why

In our own strength it is impossible for us to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. Through this channel Satan will bring temptation upon us. Christ knew that the enemy would come to every human being, to take advantage of hereditary weakness, and by his false insinuations to ensnare all whose trust is not in God. And by passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome. {TSDF 154.2}
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/03/05 05:58 AM

Just a few quotes that I have found on this subject:

"He (Christ)took our sinful natures and our sinful flesh..." G.E. Fifield, GC Bulletin 1897, page 13, col.1

"He took our sins and our sinful nature."
E.K.Slade, Conference Pres., Union Pres. RH 4/21/38, pg.3, col.4

"God does not condemn us for being shaped in iniquity, and for being born with sinful propensities." Lewis F. Were, Australasian Signs of the Times, 8/6/28, pg.13, col.1
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/03/05 06:15 AM

“His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own.” (6 MR 111) “Think of Christ’s humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset.” (4 BC 1147) “In him was no guile or sinfulness; he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature.” (RH 8-22-1907) “In doing this He took upon Himself the nature of weak, sinful humanity, and came to this world to battle with the powers of darkness.” (2 S&T 299)

“He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and of unholy passion that controlled the world.” (7A 450) “Many who profess godliness do not inquire into the reason of Christ’s long period of fasting and suffering in the wilderness. His anguish was not so much from enduring the pangs of hunger as from His sense of the fearful result of the indulgence of appetite and passion upon the race.” (1 SM 284) “He assumed human nature, with its infirmities, its liabilities, its temptations.” (3 SM 132) “A divine-human saviour, He came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their experience from childhood to manhood.” (7A 444)

“Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature.” (7A 452) “Through being partakers of the divine nature we may stand pure and holy and undefiled. The Godhead was not made human, and the human was not deified by the blending together of the two natures. Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering.” (6 MR 112)

Please note that sinful nature and sinful disloyalty are totally different aspects of human nature. Jesus possessed the one, but not the other.

“Through the provision made when God and the Son of God made a covenant to rescue man from the bondage of Satan, every facility was provided that human nature should come into union with His divine nature. In such a nature was our Lord tempted. He could have yielded to Satan’s lying suggestions as did Adam, but we should adore and glorify the Lamb of God that He did not in a single point yield one jot or one tittle.” (6 MR 112) “He came into our world to maintain a pure, sinless character, and to refute Satan’s lie that it was not possible for human beings to keep the law of God. Christ came to live the law in His human character in just that way in which all may live the law in human nature if they will do as Christ was doing.” (6 MR 111)

Remember, sinful nature and sinful character are totally different aspects of human nature. Again, Jesus possessed the one, but not the other.

“It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.” (7A 452)

“In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam’s failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.” (DA 117)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/03/05 06:22 AM

3T 84
The unsanctified will and passions must be crucified. This may be regarded as a close and severe work. Yet it must be done, or you will hear the terrible sentence from the mouth of Jesus: "Depart." You can do all things through Christ, who strengtheneth you. You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. {3T 84.1}

AH 127, 128
The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2}

Jesus was born with these same appetites and passions, which He kept under the control of a sanctified mind and will. He used them for high and holy purposes, just like we may, in Christ.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/03/05 01:55 PM

I agree with what you said, Mike. Christ was born affected by sin (with the bodily, carnal passions of human nature, which had their power greatly increased since the fall of Adam), but not infected with sin. He was not born loving sin, like us.

"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}

"The natural heart loves sin". {SpTB07 3.3}

"The human heart loves sin and hates righteousness." {BEcho, April 9, 1894 par. 3}

Hebrews 1:9 "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades."

"As he is our example in all things, so he became a brother in our infirmities, but not a companion in our sins. His nature recoiled from evil, and in a sinful world he endured anguish and torture of soul." {ST, February 10, 1887 par. 11}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/03/05 07:28 PM

Yes, and I agree with you, too. His human nature craved sin, but by partaking of the divine nature, in the same way we may and must, He resisted the sinful clamorings of His fallen nature. He hated sin and loved righteousness.

The quotes you posted above also imply infants naturally hate righteousness and love sin. Which is also why they must be born again, why they must begin partaking of the divine nature (in the same way Jesus did). Jesus never, ever wavered between sin and righteousness. He resolutely resisted sin. So it may be with us if we will walk in the Spirit and mind of the new man in the same way Jesus did.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/05/05 08:26 AM

Rosangela, you seem to be stating that you believe Christ was tempted from within, on the point of appeitite. This is the post-lapsarion position. If this is what you believe, then we are in harmony. This is what it means to say that Christ took our fallen nature, and this position is in harmony with what EGW, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, et al taught, and the traditional Adventist position.

Noone has ever taught that Christ was infected by sin. This sounds like some sort of caracature of the post-lapsarian position.

The important point is that Christ accepted the law of heredity and that biologically He was no different than any other human being. He did not have holy flesh; i.e. He could be tempted from within, on the point of appetite, for example.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/05/05 08:56 AM

John, here's Jone's statement again:

quote:
And that this is likeness to man as He is in His flesh, sinful nature, and not as He was in His original [heavenly] sinless nature ...
Note that Jones equates "sinful nature" with "flesh." The modern translations are using the terms in the way they are nomrally used. The statement by Gulley is also using "sinful nature" as something genetic.

The term "sinful nature" is normally used this way by SDA's. You can look at the works of Christology from the 19th century on, and you'll see this.

Here's an example picked at random from a web site which dislikes Waggoner's teachings:

quote:
His history clearly demonstrates where such ideas as "effective" justification, sanctification by faith alone, the sinful nature of Christ, perfectionism and the mystical atonement lead.
Note the use of the phrase "sinful nature". This can only be genetic.

This is from Waggoner's book, "Christ and His Righteousness"

quote:
The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature.
What can "sinful nature" be here but "sinful flesh"?

This is from another website:

quote:
Did Christ have a sinful nature like ours and, therefore, one that challenges us all to obey as perfectly as He did, or is He primarily our Savior first and our Exemplar second? Can sinful human beings perfectly obey a holy law or are the believing saints covered by the imputed merits of Christ all their days and in the last judgment?

http://goodnewsunlimited.org/library/atodayinterview/part1.cfm

From Ellen White:

quote:
He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. (Medical Ministry, p. 181).
What could this mean but something genetic?

There's no end to these quotes. "Sinful nature" has been used as synonomous to "sinful flesh" by countless SDA authors for I don't know how long -- at least over 100 years.

Regarding an antonymn to "divine nature" I would suggest "carnal nature" or "carnal mind".
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/05/05 02:55 PM

Tom,

What I was trying to emphasize is that Christ was not born selfish like every other baby. Selfishness is sin, and babies are born in sin, they are born loving sin, and that’s why they must be born again, as Mike pointed out. Christ was born hating sin, with a God-centered nature.
What does it mean that He was born without the propensities to sin, or propensities of disobedience? Since we are born loving sin, it’s natural for us to choose sin. Christ, on the other hand, recoiled from sin.
If Christ had been born without the natural passions and appetites of the human nature, He wouldn’t have been human. Adam was created with these passions. The difference between Adam and Christ is that these passions and appetites had been greatly increased after 4000 years of condescension, so it was much more difficult for Christ to keep them under subjection than for Adam.
If that’s what you believe, then we are in agreement.
Posted By: Charity

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/05/05 03:25 PM

I read some of this thread. Interesting. I think we can be confident and assertive on some aspects of the topic, but there is a limit to our level of precision when it comes to analysing the human nature of Christ. For me the bottom line is Christ experienced temptation and overcame in the same way that I have to.

Ellen White herself warns us to avoid the temptation to analyse the personality of Christ and I think an important component of that warning relates to attempting to define his divine and human natures too precisely.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/06/05 06:43 AM

Before responding to Rosangela, I'd like to point out my agreement with Mark. It makes me a bit uneasy to see people trying to define to carefully ideas regarding infants, and Christ's infancy/young childhood. The SOP tells us it is a mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ was able to overcome sin as a young child. So something doesn't seem right to me whenever someone tries to explain this, since I wonder how so-and-so can know what happened if it's a mystery unexplained to mortals.

OTOH that which has been revealed to us is for us and our children, and the SOP has told us that the human nature of Christ is a subject of crucial importance to us and one which we should study. It is a subject that requires great precision with our language, which is something I've found to be in general quite lacking (I'm not talking about on this site, but overall). Ellen White was very careful in the terms she used, and set a good example.

R: What I was trying to emphasize is that Christ was not born selfish like every other baby.

T: Christ was God, and so was on this basis different than every other baby. If by "selfish" you mean having only a human nature, then I agree. If you mean that Christ was biologically different then men (i.e. He had holy flesh, could not be tempted from within, could not be tempted on the point of appetite) then we disagree.

R: Selfishness is sin, and babies are born in sin, they are born loving sin, and that’s why they must be born again, as Mike pointed out. Christ was born hating sin, with a God-centered nature.

T: Once again, Christ was God, perfectly holy, as God is holy. However, his humanity was biologically like that of any other human. He accepted the law of heredity

R: What does it mean that He was born without the propensities to sin, or propensities of disobedience?

T: It means:
a) Christ was God.
b) Christ never sinned.

If you look at the Baker letter, and check how Ellen White uses the terms (that is, look at the context) you will see that she uses them, as well as other terms, to make clear that Christ was God and that He never sinned. "He could have sinned, He could have fallen; but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity" (this is from memory; I'm sure the idea's right) is a clear reference to His human activity, not His genetics.

Ellen White was a clear as can be that Christ accepted the law of hererity, and took our humanity such as it was after 4,000 years of sin. I think we're in agreement on this point, especially if you believe Christ could be tempted from within, as we are, on the point of appetite.

R:Since we are born loving sin, it’s natural for us to choose sin. Christ, on the other hand, recoiled from sin.

T: If you're talking about Christ's own divine nature, that's true. If you're talking about the human nature which Christ assumed, it's not. Christ had to deny His self, just as every human must. There's no difference here. He had to fight the same battle against self that every human being must fight. If He didn't, then His victory really doesn't concern us. That He did overcome self is made clear both in Scripture and in the Spirit of Prophesy. Considering just Scripture we have Rom. 15:3 saying that Christ "pleased not Himself"; John 5:30 "I seek not My own will, but the will of the Father"; In Gethsemanee where He cried out "Not my will, but thine be done".

As Waggoner puts it:

quote:
There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harboured an evil desire nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory. (Christ and His Righteousness) http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/chr/chr06.htm

Christ's humanity was different than ours in terms of performance, but not in terms of equipment. He was biologically the same as us; no special DNA. But where we have all followed to perfectly deny self, Christ did deny self, even to the death of the cross.

R: If Christ had been born without the natural passions and appetites of the human nature, He wouldn’t have been human. Adam was created with these passions. The difference between Adam and Christ is that these passions and appetites had been greatly increased after 4000 years of condescension, so it was much more difficult for Christ to keep them under subjection than for Adam.
If that’s what you believe, then we are in agreement.

T: Was Christ biologically like other fallen human beings? Or was there some special exemption made for Christ's DNA, so that He did not have to deny self as we must? Could He be tempted like we are? (which is from within, as well as from without) Or only as Adam was tempted before he fell? (from without)

You wrote earlier, if I understood it correctly, that you believe that Christ was tempted from within as we are, and tempted on the point of appetite. If this is what you believe, then you're position is post-lapsarian. We might have some disagreements on minor points or difficulties related to syntax/language/choice of words, but these are minor points IMO.

Something that causes me pause on this is your use of the phrase "natural appetites", as this does nt accurately describe the appetites which are passed genetically. *All* appetites are passed through the genetic code, and Christ obtained the victory of all appetite, not just "natural" appetite. If He didn't, then we are lost.

Note the following quote from the Desire of Ages:

quote:
But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}
Note the bold part. This cannot be a reference to "natural appetite."
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/06/05 02:50 AM

Of course I agree with Rosangela that infants are instinctively selfish and must necessarily be born again later on in life. But Jesus was different in that He existed before He became a human being. He chose, before His incarnation, to be born like a born again believer. He set aside His own divinty and partook of the divine nature in the same way all born again believers may and must. Thus, being God, as well as human, did not give Jesus an advantage not available to born again believers.

We also existed before we were born again, therefore, like Jesus, we too can choose to be born born again. We begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth. That is, we can choose to partake of the divine nature because we have been born again, because we are no longer the slave of sin, self, or Satan, because we have escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Like Jesus, we must stay connected to God, via the divine nature, in order to resist the unholy clamorings of our fallen flesh nature.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/06/05 07:23 AM

Was Christ's humanity (biologically) the same as ours?
Posted By: Charity

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/06/05 03:32 PM

Here is a quote that relates to Tom's question as well as to the call of Ellen White for precision in dealing with the subject and her warning of the mystery surrounding the humanity of Christ.

quote:
Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. . . .

Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129. {7ABC 448.2}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/07/05 06:28 AM

Yes, Jesus was biologically the same as us. The only thing different about Jesus was He never sinned, never even wanted to sin. Yes, why He didn't sin automatically, before He reached the age of reason and accountability, is a mystery that God hasn't explained, yet. This insight, though, implies that Jesus' human nature was identical to ours. Otherwise, if His human nature was unlike ours, in any way, it wouldn't be a mystery. Right?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/06/05 09:07 PM

We're told in the Spirit of Prophesy that Christ's human nature was identical to our own, and the Scriptures say that as well. Christ faught the battle to overcome as we must fight it is a theme repeated many times in inspiration.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/08/05 08:54 PM

1- What is a temptation from within?

2-
quote:
The SOP tells us it is a mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ was able to overcome sin as a young child.
The SOP itself gives us a hint about it:

"No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by his companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and he refused decidedly. In a moment he distinguished between right and wrong, and placed sin in the light of God's commands, holding up the law as a mirror which reflected light upon wrong. It was this keen discrimination between right and wrong that often provoked Christ's brothers to anger. Yet his appeals and entreaties, and the sorrow expressed in his countenance, revealed such a tender, earnest love for them that they were ashamed of having tempted him to deviate from his strict sense of justice and loyalty." {YI, September 8, 1898 par. 10}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/08/05 09:14 PM

A temptation from within is one which arises apart from an external influence.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/08/05 09:25 PM

I think it is a little difficult to define this. Temptations arise through thoughts. But isn't it Satan who suggests bad thoughts?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/08/05 09:59 PM

Satan certainly can suggest bad thoughts, but he's not the only means by which we may receive bad thoughts. For example, if a man sees a pretty scantily dressed woman, the flesh will respond by prompting certain thoughts. The mind knows what is or is not appropriate, the flesh does not. The prompted thought is not sin, but if when the thought gets processed by the mind one does not respond in an appropriate way, then sin occurs.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/09/05 01:59 AM

In the example you gave there is an external influence, but is it a temptation from without?
What could arise from within? I can only think of physical needs - hunger, thirst, the urge for sex, etc. But these are only physical reactions or needs; they don't constitute temptations in themselves. However, Satan takes advantage of them and suggests sinful thoughts.
So, to me, a temptation from within is just a temptation originated from physical needs, and a temptation from without is a temptation not originated from physical needs (for instance, a temptation to lie, to steal, etc.)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/09/05 06:09 AM

Does it require our five senses to be tempted? Or, can we be tempted without them? If so, how?
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/09/05 04:30 PM

quote:
"Sinful nature" has been used as synonymous to "sinful flesh" by countless SDA authors.
We have a definite problem with the word “nature”, as its use has unfortunately not been used according to meaning in “scriptures”. So now it is being used to say quite different things, and at the same time to say things that people do not know what they are saying. In some ways it is very misunderstood. The main result is that we fail to see the true meaning of “nature” in the scriptures.

In my field of violin making, oftentimes people copy work of old and dead masters. There is one principle which wise ones use:

“Be kind toward the maker; never copy a maker’s weakness”.

So with all respect, let us not perpetuate the problem by continuing to use the word in contradictory fashion, meaning different things.

“His nature recoiled from evil”
Was it his “heart-spirit” or his flesh that recoiled from evil?

“actually taking upon Himself sinful nature.”
Was it our “sinful heart-spirit” that he took upon himself or was it “sinful flesh”?

Since “nature” has lost definition, I have been hard-done by trying to find a scriptural synonym for “nature”; so I would like to introduce a compound expression “heart-spirit” for “nature”. This is the closest I could come up with that would give it scriptural meaning.

If we clarify the meaning and return to scriptural definition, we will understand better what they were saying, what we are saying, and what the scriptures are saying.

So let us use “sinful flesh” where such is meant,
and let us use “sinful heart-spirit” and “divine heart-spirit” where such is meant.

I hope this will be adopted.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/09/05 04:31 PM

Tom I find your intentional use of the word “nature” synonymous with “flesh” disturbing. Please do not excuse yourself on ‘countless SDA authors’. I have no contention with them.

I would like you to define your thought as “sinful flesh” and stop using “nature” as a synonym for “flesh” which scripture does not allow.

These are two definitely different meanings and must be kept so. Without this difference you can talk forever to no end and no understanding.

If you are quoting, then please clarify which meaning you think was used.

I hope this will be adopted.
[Frown]
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/09/05 08:27 PM

Good point, John. The problem is that even Ellen White uses the terms sinful flesh and sinful nature interchangeably. So, I like your suggestion that we use language that makes clear the difference between sinful character and sinful nature, the difference between the mind of the flesh and the mind of the new man. Also, would you agree that there is essentially no difference between the mind of the flesh and the mind of the old man?

For example, a closer look at the following quote reveal helpful and important insights:

AH 127, 128
The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2}

In this passage she says the terms flesh, fleshly, carnal lusts, animal propensities, and the lower, corrupt nature are synonymous. She also says it is the seat of our lower passions, the source of temptation, and the origin of our sinful thoughts and feelings. In other words, our sinful nature has, as it were, a mind and voice of its own.

But she also makes it clear that our sinful nature cannot act contrary to the will of God. It can generate and communicate sinful thoughts and feelings (i.e., temptations), but it cannot commit a sin. However, in the mind of the old man, we cannot resist them, so we end up desiring them or doing them, thus we become guilty of them. As such there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the sinful character we develop as a result of naturally acting out the lusts of the flesh and sinful nature itself. In fact, it could be accurately stated that sinful character is nothing more than sinful nature manifested, or personified. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these..." Gal 5:19.

But, in the mind of the new man, we may recognize the unholy thoughts and feelings produced by our sinful nature and, by the indwelling grace of God, resist them unto the honor and glory of God. In this regard Jesus is our example. "Those who overcome will follow the example of Christ by bringing bodily appetites and passions under the control of enlightened conscience and reason.” CON 74.

TE 146
Man, through yielding to Satan's temptations to indulge intemperance, brings the higher faculties in subjection to the animal appetites and passions, and when these gain the ascendancy, man, who was created a little lower than the angels, with faculties susceptible of the highest cultivation, surrenders to the control of Satan. And he gains easy access to those who are in bondage to appetite. Through intemperance, some sacrifice one half, and others two thirds, of their physical, mental, and moral powers, and become playthings for the enemy. {Te 146.1}

Those who would have clear minds to discern Satan's devices, must have their physical appetites under the control of reason and conscience. The moral and vigorous action of the higher powers of the mind are essential to the perfection of Christian character, and the strength or the weakness of the mind has very much to do with our usefulness in this world, and with our final salvation. {Te 146.2}

3T 84
The unsanctified will and passions must be crucified. This may be regarded as a close and severe work. Yet it must be done, or you will hear the terrible sentence from the mouth of Jesus: "Depart." You can do all things through Christ, who strengtheneth you. You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. {3T 84.1}
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/10/05 02:12 AM

quote:
Also, would you agree that there is essentially no difference between the mind of the flesh and the mind of the old man?
That could be alike if the mind of the old man had assimilated the mind of the flesh, but could also be quite different.

The “mind of the flesh” would be the physical inherited and cultivated tendencies. In its most base form would be lust and self-preservation.

“Mind of the old man” could be carnal, educated, pagan, religious, pharisaical… whatever else.
It could also work contrary to the mind of the flesh, but would still not be from above.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/10/05 02:20 AM

In other words:

The mind of the flesh is the physical genetic inheritance as well as physical cultivated habits.

The mind of the old man is a result of the “heart-spirit” aspect of chosen, educated and practiced thought, values (or lack of) and principles (or lack of).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 03:04 AM

I'm not totally sure, but it sounds like we both agree on the differences between flesh (nature) and spirit (mind). The mind of our old man (our cultivated sinful traits of character) is the personification (manifestation) of the mind of our sinful flesh nature (our inherited sinful traits of character). It sounds like you also make a distinction between cultivated and inherited sinful traits of character. That is, we possess way more inherited traits than we can possibly cultivate in our short lifetime and, therefore, do not manifest themselves, thus we are not guilty of them. Is that how you see things?
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 05:07 AM

quote:
MM: The mind of our old man (our cultivated sinful traits of character) is the personification (manifestation) of the mind of our sinful flesh nature (our inherited sinful traits of character).It sounds like you also make a distinction between cultivated and inherited sinful traits of character.
The “mind of the flesh” would be the physical inherited and cultivated tendencies; the physical genetic inheritance as well as cultivated habits.

The mind of the flesh does not have “character”, that belongs to the “heart-spirit”. Character cannot be inherited. Temperaments yes, but not character. Character is the domain of the person. It is developed through judgment and practice.

There is however a disposition inherited to mind the flesh.

The “mind of the old man” is of the “heart-spirit” aspect, and could be carnal, educated, pagan, religious, pharisaical… whatever else.
It could also work contrary to the mind of the flesh, but would still not be from above.

In other words: Saul (Paul as in the mind of the old man) was a Pharisee, educated, disciplined, religious. This is normally not the mind of the flesh, nor was it inherited. It was cultivated. There are many that put down their body and despise it religiously; still the mind of the old man, but not the mind of the flesh. How one is brought up and how he responds to the upbringing, has a lot to do with the “old man”.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 08:14 AM

I believe our sinful flesh is what generates and communicates unholy thoughts and feelings, which we must recognize and resist as if it were the very voice of Satan. Our sinful old man traits of character are the results of repeatedly giving in to the mind of our fallen flesh (i.e., that part of our sinful nature that wants us to meet our legitmate needs for food and fellowship [and all other aspects related to appetites and passions] in a sinful way).

Are we saying the same thing?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 08:17 AM

John: “His nature recoiled from evil”
Was it his “heart-spirit” or his flesh that recoiled from evil?

Tom: The word "nature" can mean many things, depending on the context. Webster's online lists 9 definitions. The printed dictionary I'm sure would show many more definitions than this. As the Spirit of Prophesy points out, there is not a one to one correspondence of meanings and words. We just need to do the best we can with the limitations of language we're stuck with.

In ths quote above, it's obvious that Christ's flesh is not being referred to. Of the one's given by Webster, this one appears to me to be the closest: "a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)"


John: “actually taking upon Himself sinful nature.”
Was it our “sinful heart-spirit” that he took upon himself or was it “sinful flesh”?

Tom: This is clearly refering to Christ's flesh, or genetic makeup. The context in which the SOP uses the phrase "sinful nature" (or "fallen nature" or "degenerate nature" or other synonymns) makes this clear.

John: Since “nature” has lost definition, I have been hard-done by trying to find a scriptural synonym for “nature”; so I would like to introduce a compound expression “heart-spirit” for “nature”. This is the closest I could come up with that would give it scriptural meaning.

If we clarify the meaning and return to scriptural definition, we will understand better what they were saying, what we are saying, and what the scriptures are saying.

So let us use “sinful flesh” where such is meant,
and let us use “sinful heart-spirit” and “divine heart-spirit” where such is meant.

I hope this will be adopted.

Tom: Why not just speak of the mind? The Scriptures speak of the "mind of Christ" so this is certainly Scriptural. Or "attitude of Christ" was some versions put it, which would also agree with Webster's definition.

It's a challenge to get these things right, isn't it? We first need to get the ideas right, then express them in clear ways. We have both the fuzziness of our own thoughts, and the impreciseness of language to deal with.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 08:24 AM

John: Tom I find your intentional use of the word “nature” synonymous with “flesh” disturbing. Please do not excuse yourself on ‘countless SDA authors’. I have no contention with them.

I would like you to define your thought as “sinful flesh” and stop using “nature” as a synonym for “flesh” which scripture does not allow.

Tom: I've written hundreds of pages on this subject, John, over many years. It's not an "intentional" usage designed to upset you. It's simply the way the phrase is commonly used when discussing Christology, not just by Adventists, but by non-Adventists as well. You are suggesting a non-standard usage to replace it, which is only used by yourself, as far as I know.

If you are happy with the term "sinful flesh" as opposed to "sinful nature" I will try to abide by that, but please be patient, as again, I've used the term "sinful nature" in the way others, and myself, are accustomed to use it literally thousands of times, so it's not so easy to change something like that on a dime.


John: These are two definitely different meanings and must be kept so. Without this difference you can talk forever to no end and no understanding.

Tom: I agree that it's important to make meanings clear, and language should reflect this, but in defence of my usage of the term "sinful nature" I would reiterate the agruments I have set forth previously, that Ellen White, A. T. Jones, Waggoner, Presscott and countless other SDA's and non-SDA's have used the term the same way. Nevertheless in deference to your request, I will try to avoid the term.

John: If you are quoting, then please clarify which meaning you think was used.

I hope this will be adopted.

Tom: I'm only aware of one meaning for "sinful nature" ever being used, which is "sinful flesh."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 08:31 AM

Regarding the old man and the mind of the flesh, I think I see these terms as MM has been describing them, and John as well, as both are saying the same thing as far as I can tell.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 03:12 PM

Tom,

The statement that Adam could only be tempted from without, while we are tempted from within has no foundation. Appetite is a temptation from within, whether for Adam and Eve, for Christ, or for us. Eve was not tempted just to eat of the fruit because it was “desirable to make one wise”, but also because it was “good for food” (Gen. 3:6).

There was NO difference in the way Adam and Eve were tempted and in the way we are tempted, except for the fact that the natural passions and appetites of human nature had been greatly increased after thousands of years of condescension, so it was much more difficult for Christ (and it is for us) to keep them under subjection, than it was for Adam.

Notice that the essence of temptation continues to be the same:
“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen. 3:6).
“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world” (1 John 2:16).

Notice the parallel:
Lust of the flesh – "the woman saw that the tree was good for food"
Lust of the eyes – "that it was pleasant to the eyes"
Pride of life – "a tree desirable to make one wise"; "You will be like God, knowing good and evil" (v. 5)

The temptations of Christ also follow the same pattern:
Lust of the flesh - "And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry. The devil said to him, 'If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread'" (Luke 4:2,3).

Lust of the eyes - "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and SHOWED him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, 'All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me'" (Matt. 3:8,9).

Pride of life - "And he took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, 'If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here; for it is written: He will give his angels charge of you, to guard you, and: On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone'" (vv. 9-11).

So the essence of temptation is the same, both for fallen and for unfallen beings.

“The enticements which Christ resisted were those that we find it so difficult to withstand. They were urged upon Him in as much greater degree as His character is superior to ours. With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us. {DA 116.4}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/11/05 10:05 PM

Adam had no self that had to be denied in order to do God's will, also Eve. They had to go against their biological make up in order to transgress.

We are the other way around. We cannot avoid sinning except for a power outside of ourselves. We are dependent upon the grace of God in order to overcome.

Christ was in the same situation we are, not the situation of Adam. That is, Christ could not have overcome except by relying on God's grace, plus He had a self which had to be denied.

You write there is no difference in the way Adam and Eve was tempted and how we are tempted except in that the natural passions have greatly increased. I disagree with this statement. I'm not sure of what you mean by "natural passions" but whatever they are, we not only have those, but we have unnatural passions as well by which we are tempted, in addition to the natural ones. Secondly, we have a nature which is inclined towards self. We must deny self in order to do God's will, which is an unnatural action for us, impossible apart from God's grace. This was not the case for Adam.

I would agree that the nature of the temptations which Christ faced in the wilderness (and throughout His life) were the same as ours, but not the temptations of Adam and Eve. I see their temptations as much different, because they had neither inherited or cultivated tendencies towards evil. That fundamentally changes the nature of temptation.

Here's another illustration which might help clarify what I mean by being tempted from within (BTW I appreciate your pressing for clarification as it's easy to just use familiar phrases without there being understanding as to what the words actually mean)

quote:
The story is told of a man whose besetting sin was a violent temper. He would frequently become very angry, but he laid all the blame upon the people with whom he lived, who were so exasperating. Nobody, he declared, could do right among such people. So he resolved, as many others have done, to "leave the world," and become a hermit. He chose a cave in the forest for his dwelling-place, far from any other human habitation. In the morning he took his jug to a spring near by to get water for his morning meal. The rock was moss-grown, and the continual flow of water had made it very slippery. As he set his jug down under the stream, it slid away. He put it back, and again it was driven away. Two or three times was this repeated, and each time the replacing of the jug was done with increasing energy. Finally the hermit's patience was utterly exhausted, and exclaiming, "I'll see if you'll not stay!" he picked the vessel up and set it down with such vehemence that it was broken to pieces. There was nobody to blame but himself, and he had the good sense to see that it was not the world around him but the world inside of him that made him sin.(from The Glad Tidings)
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/12/05 04:34 PM

quote:
Adam had no self that had to be denied in order to do God's will, also Eve. They had to go against their biological make up in order to transgress.
Tom,

This does not make sense. Of course they had a self to be denied, and they fell exactly because they didn’t deny it.

To deny self is just to do something you wouldn’t like to do, or to abstain from doing something you would like to do, for the love of another.

Christ denied self in heaven. God denied self.

"But in carrying out his enmity toward Christ till he crucified him,-- hung him on the cross of Calvary, with bruised body and broken heart,--Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe. Christ's death silenced forever the charge that with God self-denial was impossible. It was seen that God denied himself because of his love for mankind." {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 5}

"Christ denied himself. He did not count heaven a place to be desired while we were lost, and he left the heavenly courts to suffer a life of shame, reproach, insult, and mockery. For our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich. He lived a life of self-sacrifice and self-denial, and passed over the ground that we must travel, in order to leave us an example that we might follow in his steps." {ST, June 1, 1891 par. 3}

"In carrying out his enmity to Christ until He hung upon the cross of Calvary, with wounded, bruised body and broken heart, Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe.It was then seen that God had in His Son denied Himself, giving Himself for the sins of the world, because He loved mankind. The Creator was revealed in the Son of the infinite God. Here the question, 'Can there be self-denial with God?' was forever answered. Christ was God, and condescending to be made flesh, He assumed humanity and became obedient unto death, that He might undergo infinite sacrifice." {1SM 342.1}

"Let us learn what it means to deny self as Christ denied self. He laid aside all that He had with the Father, and clothing His divinity with humanity came to earth that He might teach men and women how they might overcome. We are living in a time of test. Shall we not decide to stand on the side of Christ in this matter?" {2SAT 319.2}

quote:
I would agree that the nature of the temptations which Christ faced in the wilderness (and throughout His life) were the same as ours, but not the temptations of Adam and Eve.
I will quote it again:

"With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us." {DA 116.4}

quote:
I see their temptations as much different, because they had neither inherited or cultivated tendencies towards evil. That fundamentally changes the nature of temptation.
The nature of temptation is the same - to please self. The intensity of temptation can vary. Our temptations are much stronger than those of Adam and Eve, and Christ’s temptations were much stronger than ours.
The essence of temptaion is the same. In this sense, there is no difference between Adam and Eve’s temptations, Christ’s, and ours. Satan tempts all on the basis of "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life". The person yields to temptation “when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin” (James 1:14, AV). The word lust here is epithumea, which the dictionary defines as “desire, longing; lust, passion; covetousness”. It’s the same word used in Romans 7:7 and there translated as covetousness. Covetousness is the root of sin. In order to sin, you must first covet. Eve clearly coveted the fruit before eating it. Satan also coveted the position of God. So, although they were unfallen beings, they were able to covet (i.e., to desire something against the will of God). The desire to possess something is not evil in itself. It becomes evil if you seek to satisfy it independently of God. Thus, there is no difference between the temptation of fallen and unfallen beings. It is generally more automatic for us to yield to temptation mainly because of our cultivated tendencies to evil (as in the case of the illustration you gave); after you sin the first time, sin becomes a habit. Jesus had no cultivated tendencies to evil because He never sinned.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/12/05 09:02 PM

Another text which can be of help:

"When our first parents were placed in the beautiful garden of Eden, they were tested in regard to their loyalty to God. They were free to choose the service of God, or by disobedience to ally themselves with the enemy of God and man. . . . If they disregard God's commands, and listened to the voice of Satan, as he spoke through the serpent, they would not only forfeit their claim to Eden, but to life itself. {TMK 14.2}
"The first great moral lesson given Adam was that of self-denial. The reins of self-government were placed in his hands. Judgment, reason, and conscience were to bear sway. . . . {TMK 14.3}
"Adam and Eve were permitted to partake of every tree in the Garden save one. There was only a single prohibition. The forbidden tree was as attractive and lovely as any of the trees in the Garden. It was called the tree of knowledge, because in partaking of that tree, of which God had said, 'Thou shalt not eat of it,' (Gen. 2:17) they would have a knowledge of sin, an experience in disobedience." {TMK 14.4}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/12/05 11:49 PM

Rosangela, do you believe the appetites and passions that Adam and Eve possessed manifested themselves in the same way before and after the Fall? Sister White indicates that the nature of mankind changed radically after the Fall. She also says that getting it right is important. “The subjects of the Sabbath, the nature of man, and the testimony of Jesus are the great and important truths to be understood; these will prove as an anchor to hold God's people in these perilous times. {1T 300.1}

PP 53
But should they once yield to temptation, their nature would become so depraved that in themselves they would have no power and no disposition to resist Satan. {PP 53.2}

5BC 1128
The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. {5BC 1128.4}

1BC 1082
The Lord created man out of the dust of the earth. He made Adam a partaker of His life, His nature. There was breathed into him the breath of the Almighty, and he became a living soul. Adam was perfect in form--strong, comely, pure, bearing the image of his Maker (MS 102, 1903). {1BC 1081.7}

3T 343
There is in the nature of man, when not under the direct influence of the Spirit of God, a disposition to envy, jealousy, and cruel distrust, which, if not subdued, will lead to a desire to undermine and tear down others, while selfish spirits will seek to build themselves up upon their ruins. {3T 343.2}

MB 54
It is impossible for man, of himself, to keep this law; for the nature of man is depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God. The works of the selfish heart are "as an unclean thing;" and "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Isaiah 64:6. {MB 54.1}
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/13/05 03:06 AM

quote:
Rosangela, do you believe the appetites and passions that Adam and Eve possessed manifested themselves in the same way before and after the Fall?
No, Mike, I believe there was a change both in man's spiritual nature and in his appetites and passions. These appetites and passions are now unbalanced, and became "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul."

"Our foes are within and without. We are assailed by temptations which are numerous and deceiving, the more perilous because not always clearly discerned. Often Satan conquers us by our natural inclinations and appetites. These were divinely appointed, and when given to man, were pure and holy. It was God's design that reason should rule the appetites, and that they should minister to our happiness. And when they are regulated and controlled by a sanctified reason, they are holiness unto the Lord.
"But men's natural appetites have been perverted by indulgence. Through unholy gratification they have become 'fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.' Unless the Christian watches unto prayer, he gives loose reign to habits which should be overcome. Unless he feels the need of constant watching, ceaseless vigilance, his inclinations, abused and misguided, will be the means of his backsliding from God." {14MR 294, 295}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/13/05 06:59 AM

I wrote a pretty long post in response to Rosangela's post above, but I guess I was in so much of a hurry I didn't post it. Hopefully it's still on my other computer, and I can post it tomorrow.
Posted By: Robert Parker

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/13/05 07:48 AM

Dear Brother,

The two quotes you submitted from Ellen White tell us that our passions and appetites were subverted by indulging them. Would you consider that this means our appetites were not perverted when we were born? It seems to me that, since we are born with evil propensities as a result of Adam and Eve's sins, it is inevitaaable that we will indulge our passions, and thus pervert them evn further.

Robert Parker
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/13/05 08:35 AM

Thank you, Rosangela. Very nice quote. I agree with you, and it.

Robert, I also agree with you. And welcome to MASDOL.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/13/05 05:54 PM

Dear Robert,

As far as being born with propensities is concerned, Christ was born with the same propensities we are. Biologically, Christ was no different than we are. How Christ was able to remain sinless as a young child, the Spirit of Prophesy tell us is a mystery not revealed to mortals.

MM has the theory that it was because Christ was born connected to God (I hope I'm expressing his idea correctly). I have heard others who have the same theory. I'm personally unconvinced by the theory, but it seems like a reasonable one. (i.e. I'm not convinced it's wrong either).

Actually I should explain further. I agree that Christ was born connected to God (given whatever that means for an infant), but I think MM thinks this is because He was born "born again" by virture of either His being divine or because He submitted His will to the Father before coming (as in Hebrews) or maybe both, I'm not sure. Anyway I hope I have the theory correct. This is one I've heard by others as well.

The view I lean towards is that Christ's connection as an infant was on the basis of His parents faith. The Spirit of Prophesy speaks of other infants being under grace by virtue of their parent's faith, and it seems reasonable to me that this should apply to Christ as well. However, given that the Spirit of Prophesy tells us that how Christ remained sinless as a child is a mystery which God has not revealed, I try to avoid speculating on this too much.

When Luke refers to the angel's referring to "that holy thing" I understand this to be referring to Christ's divinity (however there are post-lapsarians who think this was applying to Christ's humanity -- "post-lapsarian" means "post-fall" and refers to the idea that Christ took the nature of man after the fall).

Unfortunately, I did lose the long post responding to Rosangela, so I'll have to re-post.

I've appreciated this discussion. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us this is a very important subject for us to understand, and it seems to me that it's gone quite well, without a lot of invective, which unfortunately often accompanies this subject. I know I've learned things during the discussion, and I hope it's been helpful to others as well.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/13/05 09:54 PM

Old Tom: Adam had no self that had to be denied in order to do God's will, also Eve. They had to go against their biological make up in order to transgress.

Tom,

This does not make sense. Of course they had a self to be denied, and they fell exactly because they didn’t deny it.

To deny self is just to do something you wouldn’t like to do, or to abstain from doing something you would like to do, for the love of another.

Tom: But what is it that Adam would like to do rather than the will of God? There was no need for him to deny himself before sin came into the picture because his will *was* God's will; there was no conflict, hence no need for denial.

R: Christ denied self in heaven. God denied self.

"But in carrying out his enmity toward Christ till he crucified him,-- hung him on the cross of Calvary, with bruised body and broken heart,--Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe. Christ's death silenced forever the charge that with God self-denial was impossible. It was seen that God denied himself because of his love for mankind." {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 5}

"Christ denied himself. He did not count heaven a place to be desired while we were lost, and he left the heavenly courts to suffer a life of shame, reproach, insult, and mockery. For our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich. He lived a life of self-sacrifice and self-denial, and passed over the ground that we must travel, in order to leave us an example that we might follow in his steps." {ST, June 1, 1891 par. 3}

"In carrying out his enmity to Christ until He hung upon the cross of Calvary, with wounded, bruised body and broken heart, Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe.It was then seen that God had in His Son denied Himself, giving Himself for the sins of the world, because He loved mankind. The Creator was revealed in the Son of the infinite God. Here the question, 'Can there be self-denial with God?' was forever answered. Christ was God, and condescending to be made flesh, He assumed humanity and became obedient unto death, that He might undergo infinite sacrifice." {1SM 342.1}

"Let us learn what it means to deny self as Christ denied self. He laid aside all that He had with the Father, and clothing His divinity with humanity came to earth that He might teach men and women how they might overcome. We are living in a time of test. Shall we not decide to stand on the side of Christ in this matter?" {2SAT 319.2}

Old Tom:I would agree that the nature of the temptations which Christ faced in the wilderness (and throughout His life) were the same as ours, but not the temptations of Adam and Eve.

I will quote it again:

"With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us." {DA 116.4}

Tom: I wish I hadn't lost the other post. I won't be able to go into as much detail as I did there, but briefly there is a point of agreement in that point of temptation, which is on the point of appetite. But the nature of the temptations was as different as night and day.

When Adam was tempted he had not "corrupted principles" or "tendencies to evil" where Christ "came in the likeness of sinful flesh." Christ had to deal with sin, both in its tendency and in its cultivation, in overcoming temptation. It's true, of course, that Christ never committed sin, so He never cultivated it Himself, but He bore our sin, and in bearing that He had both sin in its tendency (by heredity) and its cultivation (by imputation). The Spirit of Prophesy brings out in great detail how sin contributed to Christ's temptations, and often brings out how different Christ's temptations were to Adam's. One place that deals with these concepts in great detail is "2Red - Redemption; or the Temptation of Christ in The Wilderness (1877)"

Old Tom:I see their temptations as much different, because they had neither inherited or cultivated tendencies towards evil. That fundamentally changes the nature of temptation.

The nature of temptation is the same - to please self. The intensity of temptation can vary. Our temptations are much stronger than those of Adam and Eve, and Christ’s temptations were much stronger than ours.
The essence of temptaion is the same. In this sense, there is no difference between Adam and Eve’s temptations, Christ’s, and ours. Satan tempts all on the basis of "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life". The person yields to temptation “when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin” (James 1:14, AV). The word lust here is epithumea, which the dictionary defines as “desire, longing; lust, passion; covetousness”. It’s the same word used in Romans 7:7 and there translated as covetousness. Covetousness is the root of sin. In order to sin, you must first covet. Eve clearly coveted the fruit before eating it. Satan also coveted the position of God. So, although they were unfallen beings, they were able to covet (i.e., to desire something against the will of God). The desire to possess something is not evil in itself. It becomes evil if you seek to satisfy it independently of God. Thus, there is no difference between the temptation of fallen and unfallen beings. It is generally more automatic for us to yield to temptation mainly because of our cultivated tendencies to evil (as in the case of the illustration you gave); after you sin the first time, sin becomes a habit. Jesus had no cultivated tendencies to evil because He never sinned.

Tom: I agree with your ideas regarding James 1:14 insofar as the meaning of the word "lust" or "desire" is concerned. However, the nature, or essence, of our temptations and Adam's is very different. As Sister White puts it:

quote:
He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}
This spells out the difference, and this difference is very important.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/14/05 08:52 AM

Tom, yes, you presented the view I favor correctly, as I understand it. Jesus chose to be born, as it were, born-again. He was different from John the baptist at birth in more ways than we can comprehend. John was not born born-again. True, we cannot explain why Jesus did not sin before He reached the age of accountability, but this lack of knowledge does not prevent us from believing that we begin at rebirth where He began at birth. That is, we begin with a clean slate. The mind of the new man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness", is sinless and without fault or blame - just like Jesus.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/14/05 05:28 PM

quote:
Tom: But what is it that Adam would like to do rather than the will of God? There was no need for him to deny himself before sin came into the picture because his will *was* God's will; there was no conflict, hence no need for denial.
No conflict? Both Adam and Eve faced a conflict before sinning. Eve desired to eat of the fruit, but she could have denied herself. Adam didn’t desire to be deprived of his companion, but he could have denied himself.
Christ wished to remain in heaven and in the companionship of His Father, and didn’t want to live in a world full of sin and misery, but He denied Himself.

quote:
But the nature of the temptations was as different as night and day. When Adam was tempted he had not "corrupted principles" or "tendencies to evil" where Christ "came in the likeness of sinful flesh."
No, the nature of the temptations was not different; the intensity was. Even if “corrupted principles” or “tendencies to evil” were imputed to Christ and He felt their power, this just means that temptation was stronger for Him than for Adam; however, the nature of the temptations was the same.

“Burdened with the sins of the world, he must go over the ground where Adam stumbled. He must take up the work just where Adam failed, and endure a test of the same character, but infinitely more severe than that which had vanquished him.” {GCB, February 25, 1895 par. 3}

Look at the phrase “a test of the same character”, but infinitely “more severe”. So the difference is not in the nature, in the essence, but in the intensity.

“Christ came to our world to stand where Adam stood, to endure the temptations which Adam failed to endure.” {ST, April 4, 1900 par. 4}

Look at the phrase “to endure the temptations that Adam failed to endure”. How could temptations of a different nature fit this description?

The nature of temptation is always the same:

“The temptations which Christ overcame cover all the temptations that come to man.” {ST, April 4, 1900 par. 8}

The great leading temptations that would assail man, Christ met in the wilderness of temptation. ...The first great temptation was the indulgence of appetite; the second, presumption; the third, love of the world. {RH, November 28, 1882 par. 2}

"With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us." {DA 116.4}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/14/05 07:06 PM

Rosangela, good point. The dynamics of temptation are the same whether the person being tempted is sinless or sinful. However, would you agree that possessing sinful nature changes how the temptation impacts us systemically? Adam and Eve's nature was sinless, therefore, they did not have to wrestle against compounded odds, against combined forces, that is, against the temptation itself plus the sinful urge to embrace it. Adam and Eve, in their innocence, did not possess this sinful urge, the sinful clamoring of fallen flesh, like Jesus did, and like we do.

Don't misunderstand me, please. I'm not saying Jesus Himself craved sinning, but rather His sinful flesh nature craved to meet its legitimate needs (i.e., appetites and passions) in a sinful way. However, from the cradle to the cross, Jesus successfully resisted these unholy urges and clamorings. And so may we, if we choose to be reborn, and if we remain connected to Christ in the same way He was connected to the Father. But Adam and Eve did not have to resist the sinful mind and voice of a fallen nature in addition to the temptation itself.

Whether or not having a sinless nature gave them an advantage over us in resisting temptation is a good question and concept to explore. My initial reaction is to say, No. Whether a temptation originates from within or from without shouldn't change the basic dynamics of being tempted. The dynamics of resisting temptation are the same, therefore, I'm not sure how having a sinless nature or a sinful one would make any difference, so far as resisting the temptation. As born again believers it is our privilege to partake of the divine nature, which, it would seem, should make the playing field equal.

In other words, so long as we are partaking of the divine nature we should be just as capable as Adam and Eve were in resisting temptation, and whether those temptations originate within or without shouldn't matter, so far as resisting them is concerned. The fact we must resist temptation on two fronts, and Adam and Eve didn't, shouldn't change the dynamics of resisting temptation. However, it does complicate things.

OHC 298
When the human will cooperates with the will of God, it becomes omnipotent, and the worker can make opportunities. {OHC 298.4}

FW 26, 27
The law of the human and the divine action makes the receiver a laborer together with God. It brings man where he can, united with divinity, work the works of God. {FW 26.3}

HP 279
You can go to God in prayer; you can ask, and receive; you can believe, hanging your helpless soul on Christ. It means that humanity can work the will and ways of God. Humanity and divinity are combined for this very purpose. {HP 279.2}

TE 107
The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity, and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome. Christ came to make us "partakers of the divine nature," and His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin. {Te 107.1}
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/14/05 10:51 PM

quote:
The dynamics of temptation are the same whether the person being tempted is sinless or sinful.
Mike,

One more interesting text about the nature of temptation:

"Fallen men had not the advantages of Adam in Eden. They had been separating from God for four thousand years. The wisdom to understand, and power to resist, the temptations of Satan had become less and less, until Satan seemed to reign triumphant in the earth. Appetite and passion, the love of the world and presumptuous sins, were the great branches of evil out of which every species of crime, violence, and corruption grew." {RH, August 18, 1874 par. 15}

quote:
However, would you agree that possessing sinful nature changes how the temptation impacts us systemically?
It seems that Adam could resist Satan in his human nature, while we need the human nature and the divine nature combined in order to resist him, because Adam’s power of resistance (physical, mental and moral) was much stronger than ours.

"Christ knew that Adam in Eden, with his superior advantages, might have withstood the temptations of Satan, and conquered him. He also knew that it was not possible for man, out of Eden, separated from the light and love of God since the fall, to resist the temptations of Satan in his own strength." {RH, August 18, 1874 par. 11}

"Fallen men had not the advantages of Adam in Eden. They had been separating from God for four thousand years. The wisdom to understand, and power to resist, the temptations of Satan had become less and less, until Satan seemed to reign triumphant in the earth." {RH, August 18, 1874 par. 15}

"The very fact that Adam's trial was small, made his sin exceeding great. God tested him in that which was least, to prove him; and with the prohibition he stated that the punishment consequent upon his disobedience would be death. If Adam could not bear this smallest of tests to prove his loyalty, he surely could not have endured a stronger trial had he been taken into closer relationship with God, to bear higher responsibilities. He evidenced that God could not trust him; should he be exposed to Satan's more determined attacks, he would signally fail." {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 14}

"The plan of salvation was so arranged that when Adam was tested, temptation was removed from him as far as possible. When Adam was tempted, he was not hungry. He had the opportunity of satisfying every need. But when Christ was tempted, He was faint from want of food. He was to qualify Himself for the office of Redeemer by successfully resisting every assault of the enemy. His power of resistance was to be an example for all who would hereafter be placed in trying positions." {ST, April 4, 1900 par. 4}

Christ’s power of resistance came from His divine nature combined with humanity:

"If Christ was a victor on the point of appetite, then there was a chance for man to overcome. If Satan gained the victory through his subtlety, man was bound by the power of appetite in chains of indulgence which he could not have moral power to break. Christ's humanity alone could never have endured this test, but his divine power combined with humanity gained in behalf of man an infinite victory. Our Representative in this victory, raised humanity in the scale of moral value with God." {RH, October 13, 1874 par. 5}

One more thing. You said,
quote:
we cannot explain why Jesus did not sin before He reached the age of accountability
This text of Ellen White, which I have quoted some days ago, but seems to have passed unnoticed, may throw some light on this:

"No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by his companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and he refused decidedly. In a moment he distinguished between right and wrong, and placed sin in the light of God's commands, holding up the law as a mirror which reflected light upon wrong. It was this keen discrimination between right and wrong that often provoked Christ's brothers to anger. Yet his appeals and entreaties, and the sorrow expressed in his countenance, revealed such a tender, earnest love for them that they were ashamed of having tempted him to deviate from his strict sense of justice and loyalty." {YI, September 8, 1898 par. 10}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/15/05 01:38 AM

Rosangela: It appears to me that our differences on this subject are symantical.

The quote you provided about Christ's childhood was discussing Christ's divinity. "God in human flesh" "Divinity flashing through humanity." Christ's whole missions was to manifest the character of the Father, and this He did, even as a child. A key point which Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, et. al. made was that Christ was God manifest in sinful flesh, such as we have, not the sinless flesh of Adam before the fall. Again, I cannot tell that we are differing in any meaningful way, based on what you wrote. You seem to agree with the main points I was making (laying aside my choice of words), and I agree with the main points you were making. "Nature," in particular, is a particularly elusive word, having many different meaning and shades of meaning.

One comment regarding how sin changes things rather than simply strengthening a temptation is that with a sinful nature temptations include things which are unnatural as well as natural. Hopefully this thought is clear. I'm making this point because both you and MM have used an expression similar to "natural passions" or "natural appetites," but sinful flesh is tempted by unnatural passions and appetities as well, and these are temptations which must also be overcome.

I've appreciated this thread as it has helped me recognize even more fully the importance of language in trying to communicate in subjects such as the human nature of Christ or the Trinity. It's indeed a challenge to comminicate on these subjects in ways which are simple, clear and accurate.

MM: If your born again theory were true, then wouldn't that explain how Christ remained sinless as a child? It seems to me there wouldn't be a mystery.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/15/05 05:05 PM

Rosangela, great quotes. Once again, well done. Adam definitely had inherent, innate, inborn advantages that unconverted sinners do not, but when we experience the miracle of rebirth and begin partaking of the divine nature, as Christ did, then we are no longer incapable of resisting temptation. I also thought it was interesting that Sister White said Jesus had to prove Himself qualified to serve as our Saviour by resisting temptation.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/15/05 05:16 PM

Tom, it isn't as surprising to me that Jesus as a child was able to resist temptations equal to His age and experience. The part I find mysterious and unexplainable is how He, as an infant, was able to behave sinlessly, to avoid the selfish behaviour common to all infants. According to the view of rebirth that I have embraced we begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth, that is, with a clean slate. And, so long as we are abiding in Christ, in the same way He abode in the Father, we will work the works of God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/15/05 09:54 PM

quote:
Tom, it isn't as surprising to me that Jesus as a child was able to resist temptations equal to His age and experience. The part I find mysterious and unexplainable is how He, as an infant, was able to behave sinlessly, to avoid the selfish behaviour common to all infants.
If he was born "born again", why would this be surprising? What does it mean for an infant to be "born again" anyway? I've heard others besides you express this idea, but it really doesn't make any sense to me.

You've expressed the idea that even in the womb that fetuses sin, and I asked several times for an example of fetus sins, but AFAIR you never provided any examples. It's not so much that I'm against the ideas you are expressing for some theological reason, but I just can't make sense out of them. What does it mean for a baby to be born again? What sins to fetuses commit? Is it selfish for a baby to cry because it's hungry or cold or wet?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/16/05 02:01 AM

Jesus was the only person ever born born-again. But, nevertheless, He came into this world with the same sinful nature that causes normal human infants to sin instinctively and automatically, and yet Jesus did not sin by default, like we do, during this age of non-accountability. How can an infant, even the baby Jesus, recognize and resist sin, self, and Satan? Infants aren’t old enough to understand sin and salvation, therefore, they cannot not sin. Except for Jesus. He didn’t sin. That’s what I think is the mysterious part about the life of Jesus.

About fetal sins. I do not have a handy quote, only the ones I posted elsewhere, where Sister White warned mothers and fathers to be careful during prenatal development because the characters of unborn children are affected for weal or woe. This insight implies fetuses begin developing certain traits of character before they are born.

I cannot remember how I reacted to the various influences and stimuli that affected me while I was in my mother’s womb, but given the fact we are conceived in sin, that we inherit a very active and powerful sinful nature, which causes us to sin automatically (until we are old enough to choose to be born again), I cannot imagine that I responded in a sinless way.

Since I don’t like cramped places, I seriously suspect that, at least from time to time, I became somewhat impatient as I struggled to get comfortable in the limited space my mother could spare me in her stomach.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/16/05 05:30 AM

quote:
Adam had no self that had to be denied in order to do God's will, also Eve. They had to go against their biological make up in order to transgress.
Tom, “self” is not biological; it is spiritual. They had to go against their spiritual makeup in order to transgress.

Their default spiritual makeup was to trust God. They had to first doubt God (spiritual activity) once that was accomplished, then they were able to look for a different input (spiritual activity); to consult their “lower nature” (appetite) and their own reasoning re desire for knowledge.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/18/05 08:01 AM

quote:
Infants aren’t old enough to understand sin and salvation, therefore, they cannot not sin. Except for Jesus. He didn’t sin.
Does this make any sense? Infants can't sin, except for Jesus, who didn't sin. [Confused]

Regarding pre-natal development, certainly the actions of the parents are important. I've been arguing this all along. However, the reasons the parents actions are important have to do with character development, which is something which takes place well after the fetus period.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/18/05 08:04 AM

John, I agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily with your premise. Maybe "self" isn't the best word to use, as it seems to be easily misunderstood (sort of like "nature" I guess). My point was pretty much what you were pointing out, which is that Adam and Eve had to fight against that which was natural for them to do (obey God) in order to sin, whereas we must do the reverse, fight against that which is natural for us to do (disobey God) in order not to sin.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/19/05 06:04 AM

Tom, do you believe infants are sinless? that they cannot sin until they understand the difference between right and wrong? that, in the meantime, they naturally obey God? that they naturally respond to the stimuli and influences affecting them in a sinless way?

And, what about all those SOP quotes where she warns parents to be careful during the prenatal months because unborn children are learning good and bad habits in the womb? How do you interpret her insights?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/19/05 02:16 AM

I'll start with the last question first. I believe that our characters determine our destiny. This is because God will take all to heaven who would be happy there. That prenatal influences impact a person's character seems obvious to me, and I would believe that without any comments from the Spirit of Prophesy.

I believe we inherit natures which, apart from the grace of God, must result in rebellion against God. However, the grace of God is given to all, and it is powerful enough to overcome sin to all who are open to receive it.

We are by nature enemies of God, alientated against Him in our mind. We need the healing which Jesus Christ alone can provide. However, I'm not aware that the time in which this healing could start is limited. It's clear to me that babies are dependent upon the influence of their parents.

I hope this answers your questions. If not, please follow up.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/19/05 04:16 AM

Yes, it does, and I am pleasantly surprised, which makes me wonder if I have misunderstood something. I'm sorry to admit as much, but we rarely see eye to eye, which is also why I learn so much studying with you.

You mentioned you know of no time limit when the grace of God can save a sinner, which is probably the safest position to take as it relates to infants, babies, the ages of non-accountability, and adults guilty of sins of ignorance who are otherwise living in harmony with their conscience and convictions. In judgment we can trust God to do the right thing.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/19/05 10:32 PM

I´m spending some days at my parents´ house, and I don´t have a computer there. I´m writing from a cyber café.
Tom, you said,
quote:
We are by nature enemies of God, alientated against Him in our mind.
Correct, we are born that way, and that´s why we must be born again. But your opinion about Jesus is not clear to me. Do you think that He was born in this same condition or not?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/19/05 10:55 PM

I think His humanity was biologically the same as ours, but Jesus was by nature God, so we cannot say of Him that He was an enemy of God by nature, since He was, of His own nature, God Himself. This is why the Scriptures say things like "the Word was made flesh" and that Christ was "made of a woman", "made under the law", and "made to be sin". The idea is that Christ became something which He was not by nature without losing what He already had, which was His own divinity, which is perfect in holiness.

The way the Spirit of Prophesy puts it is that Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature (something like that; the "our sinful nature" and "His sinless nature" part is right; it 's in Medical Missionary I think).

The purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal the Father. This He did by emptying Himself, while at the same time revealing the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Why emptying Himself, He nevertheless remained full of divinity. Pretty cool, huh!

So, to summarize, His flesh was the same as ours, in terms of its biological structure (you wouldn't be able to discern something different about Christ's humanity, His DNA for example, by looking at it through a microscope) but He was different than we are in His performance (He never sinned in word, thought or deed) and in the fact that He was by nature (i.e. His own nature) divine and sinless.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/20/05 01:38 AM

Tom, would you also say, in addition to being biologically the same as us, that Jesus also inherited the same fallen flesh nature we inherited, that is, that part of our human makeup that tempts us, from within, to satisfy our legitimate needs (i.e. appetites and passions) in a sinful manner?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/20/05 02:07 AM

quote:
Tom, would you also say, in addition to being biologically the same as us, that Jesus also inherited the same fallen flesh nature we inherited, that is, that part of our human makeup that tempts us, from within, to satisfy our legitimate needs (i.e. appetites and passions) in a sinful manner?
I wouldn't say "in addition to" because what you wrote as "in addition to" was addressing exactly the same thing I was encompassing by "biologically the same as us." I would say your description is equivalent to what I meant. By "biologically" I meant that which is passed by heredity.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/21/05 06:16 AM

I figured that's you meant, but there are those who do not include both when they say Jesus was biologically the same as us. They exclude the unholy voice aspect of sinful flesh.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/21/05 12:40 AM

quote:
They exclude the unholy voice aspect of sinful flesh.
What's this mean? Oh, must be "unholy vice." No, I wouldn't exclude that. His heredity stunk, just like ours does.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/24/05 03:52 PM

quote:
Jesus also inherited the same fallen flesh nature we inherited, that is, that part of our human makeup that tempts us, from within, to satisfy our legitimate needs (i.e. appetites and passions) in a sinful manner?
I wouldn’t say that our fallen flesh nature tempts us to satisfy our legitimate needs in a sinful manner, but that Satan tempts us to satisfy our legitimate needs in a sinful manner.

Summarizing my position: Jesus had our biological constitution, but not our depraved spiritual constitution - the selfishness and its fruits, with which we are born (our spiritual propensities to sin).

“Vanity is one of the strongest principles of our depraved natures, and Satan will constantly appeal to it with success.” {2T 494.1}

“Selfishness is the great law of our degenerate nature.” {TDG 162.1}

“Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God.” {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7} - That’s why babies need a Saviour.
Posted By: Ikan

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/24/05 04:12 PM

"That’s why babies need a Saviour."

And how to babies and fetuses (a nod to MM) get saved? I'm very curious....
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/25/05 06:35 AM

quote:
Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God. But provision is made for the repenting sinner, so that by faith in the atonement of the only begotten Son of God, he may receive forgiveness of sin, find justification, receive adoption into the heavenly family, and become an inheritor of the kingdom of God. Transformation of character is wrought through the operation of the Holy Spirit, which works upon the human agent, implanting in him, according to his desire and consent to have it done, a new nature. The image of God is restored to the soul, and day by day he is strengthened and renewed by grace, and is enabled more and more perfectly to reflect the character of Christ in righteousness and true holiness. {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}

Rosangela, would you agree that Jesus was born, incarnated, with the same "new nature" we are born again with? If so, what is the nature of the new, born again nature?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/25/05 06:40 AM

quote:
And how to babies and fetuses (a nod to MM) get saved? I'm very curious....
By the grace of God, of course. It's imputed to them, and must be, necessarily, based on what God knows about them, whether or not they would be happy growing up and living in heaven. He will not force anyone into heaven who wouldn't enjoy living there, and He knows if they will or not.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/25/05 02:36 PM

Ikan,

"I am the Way. . . . No man cometh unto the Father but by Me."

No human being will be found in heaven without a Saviour. We know that some adults who have never had the opportunity to know and accept Christ will be in heaven, but of course they will only be there because of Christ’s sacrifice. The same is true of children before the age of accountability.

Ellen White speaks specifically about this in 3 SM 313. As to the children of believers, she says,

“The word of God came to the Israelites in bondage to gather their children into their houses and to mark the doorposts of their houses with blood from a lamb, slain. This prefigured the slaying of the Son of God and the efficacy of His blood, which was shed for the salvation of the sinner. It was a sign that the household accepted Christ as the promised Redeemer. It was shielded from the destroyer's power. The parents evidenced their faith in implicitly obeying the directions given them, and the faith of the parents covered themselves and their children. They showed their faith in Jesus, the great Sacrifice, whose blood was prefigured in the slain lamb. The destroying angel passed over every house that had this mark upon it. This is a symbol to show that the faith of the parents extends to their children and covers them from the destroying angel.” {3SM 314}

She still says,

“Some parents allow Satan to control their children, and their children are not restrained, but are allowed to have wicked tempers, to be passionate, selfish, and disobedient. Should they die these children would not be taken to heaven. ... I said to Brother Matteson, ‘Whether all the children of unbelieving parents will be saved we cannot tell, because God has not made known His purpose in regard to this matter, and we had better leave it where God has left it and dwell upon subjects made plain in His Word.’ This is a most delicate subject. Many unbelieving parents manage their children with greater wisdom than many of those who claim to be children of God. They take much pains with their children, to make them kind, courteous, unselfish and to teach them to obey, and in this the unbelieving show greater wisdom than those parents who have the great light of truth but whose works do not in any wise correspond with their faith.” {3SM 314, 315}
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/25/05 02:44 PM

quote:
Rosangela, would you agree that Jesus was born, incarnated, with the same "new nature" we are born again with? If so, what is the nature of the new, born again nature?
Mike, it seems to me that Christ's divine nature is the equivalent of our new, born-again nature. What is your opinion about this?

"Christ overcame every temptation of the enemy, because in him divinity and humanity were combined; but there is no safety for any soul who has merely a legal religion, a form of godliness, a round of ceremonial exactions. To attend services on the Sabbath, to pray occasionally or regularly, makes no one a Christian. The important thing is to become united to Christ, to believe in Christ as a personal Saviour, to live by faith in the Son of God. The question to ask the soul is, 'Am I a partaker of the divine nature, represented as being born again? Has a new moral taste been created?' If not, the soul is in deadly peril. He who is born of God is a new man. 'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.' The old imperious will is gone. The pride is cleansed from the soul. Selfishness is uprooted. The quick, passionate temper no longer masters the man; for Jesus Christ has brought the thoughts into captivity to himself." {ST, September 26, 1892 par. 4}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/25/05 07:24 PM

quote:
Summarizing my position: Jesus had our biological constitution, but not our depraved spiritual constitution - the selfishness and its fruits, with which we are born (our spiritual propensities to sin).
I'm having trouble understanding this. If Jesus had our biological constitution, then He had the same biological constitution we have, which includes the things that biological constitution has. You can't say He had our biological constitution but deny He had the things that that constituion has (which is sin in its tendency).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/25/05 07:36 PM

Rosangela, it seems to be more involved than that. When Jesus became a human He did not cease being God, but as a human He set aside His deity and partook of the divine nature like a born again believer. His source of victory was not His own deity, but rather the divine nature of the Father, which is the same divine nature available to born again believers.

The "new nature" we receive when we are born again is not the divine nature of God. It is the new nature that enables us to partake of the divine nature, as such, I don't see how they can be equivalent. I'm thinking that Sister White used the term "new nature" in the same way she uses the terms new mind and new heart.

We still possess the same sinful flesh nature we inherited at birth. It is not replaced when we're born again. Instead, we receive a new mind, a new heart, which is what enables us to partake of the divine nature. When we combine humanity (new man mind) and divinity (divine nature) in this way, like Jesus did, we are empowered to recognize and resist the unholy thoughts and feelings produced by our fallen nature, just like Jesus did.

We are not born with the mind of the new man or new heart. We are not like Jesus until after we are born again, until after we receive the mind of the new man, until after we begin partaking of the divine nature. We begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth, that is, with a new mind and heart, and a clean slate, all of which enables us to resist our fallen nature, in the same way Jesus did.

What do you think?

7BC 907
Christ is a perfect representation of God on the one hand, and a perfect specimen of sinless humanity on the other hand. Thus He has combined divinity and humanity (MS 44, 1898). {7BC 907.4}

1SM 409
He withstood the temptation, through the power that man may command. He laid hold on the throne of God, and there is not a man or woman who may not have access to the same help through faith in God. Man may become a partaker of the divine nature; not a soul lives who may not summon the aid of Heaven in temptation and trial. Christ came to reveal the source of His power, that man might never rely on his unaided human capabilities. {1SM 408.2}

MH 180
The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome. Christ came to make us "partakers of the divine nature," and His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin. {MH 180.5}

LHU 76
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. {LHU 76.2}

LHU 28
With Christ the enmity was in one sense natural; in another sense it was supernatural, as humanity and divinity were combined. {LHU 28.3}

COL 314
Satan had claimed that it was impossible for man to obey God's commandments; and in our own strength it is true that we cannot obey them. But Christ came in the form of humanity, and by His perfect obedience He proved that humanity and divinity combined can obey every one of God's precepts. {COL 314.4}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/25/05 09:09 PM

Mike: Two points. One is that the way EGW puts it is that Jesus set aside the "prerogatives" of divinity, which I believe is more accurate then saying He set aside His divinity (which could give the false impression that He ceased being divine).

Second point is actually a question, and this is, is there any difference between partaking of the divine nature and having a new mind? You're saying the new mind allows us to partake of the divine nature, but it seems to me that partaking of the divine nature means the same things as having the mind of Christ.

To put it in simple language, God gives us the desire and the capacity to appreciate God, heaven, and spiritual things in general; including the desire and capacity to do His will. Does partaking of the divine nature mean anything different than this?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 05:49 PM

quote:
You can't say He had our biological constitution but deny He had the things that that constituion has (which is sin in its tendency).
Tom,

By nature the heart is evil. {AG 22.4}
By nature we are alienated from God.{AG 313.3}
By nature man has no love for God. {RH, March 12, 1901 par. 14}
Men are selfish by nature. {RH, January 6, 1891 par. 7}
The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. {TDG 34.3}

Which of the above statements, which refer to our inheritance, apply to Jesus, in your opinion?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 05:52 PM

Mike,

I'll take some time to analyze your arguments.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/27/05 06:30 AM

Old Tom:You can't say He had our biological constitution but deny He had the things that that constituion has (which is sin in its tendency).

RR: Tom,

By nature the heart is evil. {AG 22.4}
By nature we are alienated from God.{AG 313.3}
By nature man has no love for God. {RH, March 12, 1901 par. 14}
Men are selfish by nature. {RH, January 6, 1891 par. 7}
The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. {TDG 34.3}

Which of the above statements, which refer to our inheritance, apply to Jesus, in your opinion?

Tom: I think the following quotation helps to answer your questions:

quote:
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." In the wilderness, weakened physically by a fast of forty days, He met the adversary. His dignity was questioned, His authority disputed, His allegiance to His Father assailed by the fallen foe. {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}
Note the contrast between Adam and Christ. Adam had "no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil." BUT when Christ came, etc. So there is a clear contrast between Adam and Christ which involves "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil."

Now we cannot say of Christ Himself that He had "corrupt principles" or "tendencies to evil". Yet a contrast is being made, which clearly includes these things. To what does this apply? Evidently to Christ's flesh, which EGW makes clear in stating that Christ bore the "likeness of sinful flesh." So the conclusion is that the "likeness of sinful flesh" which Christ bore had the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" which Adam did not have.

So in answer to your questions above, I would say that all of these things applied to Christ's flesh, but none of them applied to Christ Himself. This is because while we are only human and have by nature no other nature than a sinful one, this is not true of Christ. Christ's own nature was sinless and divine. This is not true of us. However, He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. Therefore His humanity was biologically identical to ours, but His "nature" or "mind" or "heart" was not identical to ours; just His flesh.

The word "nature" is a vague word to use, as, depending on the context, it can mean many different things. In reference to Christ's similarity to us, it refers to His flesh. In terms of Christ's being different to us, it (often) refers to His own divine, sinless nature.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 07:18 PM

Tom, yes, Jesus definitely did not stop being God when He became a man. But as a man He partook of His Father's divine nature, not His own divine nature, in order to develop and maintain holy traits of character. In this case, mind and nature are not one and the same thing.

So, it seems reasonable to conclude that the mind of Christ and the divine nature are, though interrelated, separate aspects of our human makeup. We receive the implanted mind of Christ, but we can only partake of the divine nature. The one is implanted, while the other is partaken.

1SM 257
Man's substitute and surety must have man's nature, a connection with the human family whom he was to represent, and, as God's ambassador, he must partake of the divine nature, have a connection with the Infinite, in order to manifest God to the world, and be a mediator between God and man. {1SM 257.1}

COL 98, 99
The natural inclinations are softened and subdued. New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. A new standard of character is set up--the life of Christ. The mind is changed; the faculties are roused to action in new lines. Man is not endowed with new faculties, but the faculties he has are sanctified. The conscience is awakened. We are endowed with traits of character that enable us to do service for God. {COL 98.3}

AG 225
If we ever attain unto holiness, it will be through the renunciation of self and the reception of the mind of Christ. {AG 225.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 07:27 PM

Rosangela, I think it is important to remember that Jesus was born, as it were, born again. He did not begin His life as a human like we do. He began His life as a human like a born again believer. Therefore, the following quote applies to Jesus, and the ones you posted do not apply to Jesus (and, by the way, they do not apply to born again believers while they are actively partaking of the divine nature):

COL 98, 99
The natural inclinations are softened and subdued. New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. A new standard of character is set up--the life of Christ. The mind is changed; the faculties are roused to action in new lines. Man is not endowed with new faculties, but the faculties he has are sanctified. The conscience is awakened. We are endowed with traits of character that enable us to do service for God. {COL 98.3}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 08:30 PM

MM: I've heard others express the same thoughts you have, but it doesn't really make sense to me. What makes more sense to me is that Christ was not *only* human; He was God in human flesh. This is what I see the principle difference being (and that He never chose to sin).

However, this is certainly a difficult subject to ponder. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us that how Christ remained sinless as a young child is a mystery unexplained to mortals, so I'm very reticent to be very adamant on this point. I'm just stating what makes sense to me.

We do have much revelation regarding the reality of Christ's identification with us, so that is something we state positively without doubt.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 09:27 PM

Tom,

There is an either/or relationship in the quotations I mentioned: either one is born with an evil heart or with a good heart; it can’t be both. Either one is born alienated from God or in allegiance to Him; it can’t be both! Either one is born loving God or loving Satan; it can’t be both. Either one is born selfish or unselfish; it can’t be both! Either one is born inclined or disinclined to truth and virtue; it can’t be both. Holding that someone can be born both ways is creating a spiritual aberration. What you are trying to do is to split Christ into two. He had two natures but He was not two persons.

Saying that the quotation you mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that there was indwelling sin in Christ, that is, there was sin dwelling or residing within Christ. Indwelling sin is sin. In order to save us, Christ must be without sin in His humanity, not in His divinity. Besides, Ellen White says,

"There should not be the faintest misgivings in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ." {16MR 117.1}

Besides that, saying that the quotation mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that Christ was not pure and upright, that Christ was not in the image of God, that Christ was not faultless, and that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ. Again, it is not possible to split Christ into two, and saying that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ, but at the same time there weren’t corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ. This simply does not make sense.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 09:54 PM

Mike,

What you say about Christ being born born again may make sense, and I will study this in further detail.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 10:21 PM

R: Saying that the quotation you mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that there was indwelling sin in Christ, that is, there was sin dwelling or residing within Christ.

Tom: What you are saying is not what I wrote. Here's what I wrote:

quote:
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." In the wilderness, weakened physically by a fast of forty days, He met the adversary. His dignity was questioned, His authority disputed, His allegiance to His Father assailed by the fallen foe. {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}

Note the contrast between Adam and Christ. Adam had "no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil." BUT when Christ came, etc. So there is a clear contrast between Adam and Christ which involves "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil."

Now we cannot say of Christ Himself that He had "corrupt principles" or "tendencies to evil". Yet a contrast is being made, which clearly includes these things. To what does this apply? Evidently to Christ's flesh, which EGW makes clear in stating that Christ bore the "likeness of sinful flesh." So the conclusion is that the "likeness of sinful flesh" which Christ bore had the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" which Adam did not have.

I didn't say there was a contrast between Christ is "every particular". I said the opposite. I said there was a contrast in regards to something, that "something" being Christ's flesh. What else could it be?

R: Indwelling sin is sin. In order to save us, Christ must be without sin in His humanity, not in His divinity.

Tom: Christ had to be made sin in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Christ was sinless in that He committed no sin. His flesh was no different than ours. He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. That's what the Spirit of Prophesy says. You are correct that on this earth He was one person, but He had two natures, His own divine nature, which was sinless, and the human nature He took, which was our human nature, or to use language John B. prefers, Christ partook of the same flesh we have.

R: Saying that the quotation mentioned establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ in every particular is equivalent to saying that Christ was not pure and upright, that Christ was not in the image of God, that Christ was not faultless, and that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ.

Tom: Where did I say the quotation establishes a contrast between Adam and Christ "in every particular"? My point was it established a contrast in some particular. She's obviously making a contrast. What is the contrast? It's regarding Christ's flesh. The quote is above. You can verify that. There's nothing else it could be.

R: Again, it is not possible to split Christ into two, and saying that there were corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ, but at the same time there weren’t corrupt principles and tendencies to evil in Christ. This simply does not make sense.

Tom: I never said anything like that. I invite you to reread my post. What I said was that the quotation makes a contrast between Adam and Christ regarding "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil". This is the part right here which makes the contrast:

"There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh."

My point is that the contrast can only be in reference to Adam's flesh and Christ's flesh. What else could it be? There's some contrast being made. What is it? I say it's clearly contrasting Adam and Christ in relation to their flesh. It cannot be in relation to character, because Christ was sinless.

You wrote before that you agreed that Christ had the same biological constitution that we have. I agree with that. This biological constitution includes the same things ours does, because it is the same as ours.

Waggoner puts it as clearly as I think it can be put here (especially the last paragraph touches upon what we have been discussing):

quote:
A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.

The following statement in the book of Hebrews is very clear on this point:

For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. ["For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." Revised Version.] Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted. Heb. 2:16-18



If He was made in all things like unto His brethren, then He must have suffered all the infirmities and been subject to all the temptations of His brethren. Two more texts that put this matter very forcibly will be sufficient evidence on this point. We first quote 2 Cor. 5:21:

For He [God] hath made Him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

This is much stronger than the statement that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is the same mystery as that the son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness. So Paul says to the Galatians that "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4,5.

In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." "For we have not a 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. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Heb. 2:18; 4:15, 16.

One more point and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." How was it that Christ could be thus "compassed with infirmity" (Heb. 5:2) and still know no sin? Some may have thought, while reading thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus by bringing Him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the "Divine power" of our blessed Saviour, who Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man in order that He might exalt man to His own spotless purity, which He retained under the most adverse circumstances. His humanity only veiled His Divine nature, by which He was inseparably connected with the invisible God and which was more than able successfully to resist the weaknesses of the flesh. There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harbored an evil desire nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory. (Christ and His Righteousness, the chapter "God manifest in the flesh")

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/26/05 11:17 PM

Tom,

I'm not understanding what you mean. In your previous post you said,

quote:
So the conclusion is that the "likeness of sinful flesh" which Christ bore had the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" which Adam did not have.
Saying that there were "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" in Christ's flesh is the same as saying that there were "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" in Christ. Not to mention that "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" involve the mind, not just the body.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/27/05 12:24 AM

Here's the quote:

quote:
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." In the wilderness, weakened physically by a fast of forty days, He met the adversary. His dignity was questioned, His authority disputed, His allegiance to His Father assailed by the fallen foe. {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}
Here's what I wrote:

Note the contrast between Adam and Christ. Adam had "no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil." BUT when Christ came, etc. So there is a clear contrast between Adam and Christ which involves "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil."

Now we cannot say of Christ Himself that He had "corrupt principles" or "tendencies to evil". Yet a contrast is being made, which clearly includes these things. To what does this apply? Evidently to Christ's flesh, which EGW makes clear in stating that Christ bore the "likeness of sinful flesh." So the conclusion is that the "likeness of sinful flesh" which Christ bore had the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" which Adam did not have.
----------------------------------------------

This looks sound to me.

What do you think the quote means? In what way do you think Chris had "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" other than in the flesh He bore? I can't see any other possible explanation. Perhaps you could suggest one.

Here's the key part: "There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore 'the likeness of sinful flesh.'"
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/27/05 02:42 PM

I suggest that the contrast being made is not at all between the words "corrupt principles"/"tendencies to evil" and Christ's "likeness of sinful flesh". The contrast involves everything that is being said about Adam - he had no justifiable reason to fall, yet he fell; but Christ was in disadvantage in relation to him, with a degraded body and after a fast of 40 days, yet He overcame.

A parallel passages help us understand the passage you quoted:

"In what consisted the strength of the assault made upon Adam, which caused his fall? It was not his indwelling sin; for God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. There were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, no corrupt propensities of tendencies to evil. Adam was as faultless as the angels before God's throne. These things are inexplainable, but many things which now we cannot understand will be made plain when we shall see as we are seen, and know as we are known. What humiliation our Lord was subjected to when assailed by the powers of the prince of darkness. Was it no degradation to the spotless Son of God that His dignity should be questioned, His authority disputed, and His allegiance to His heavenly Father assailed by a fallen foe? How humiliating to Christ to have Satan show a superiority to Him. We but dimly comprehend why Christ was brought in contact with the adversary of God and man. It was in behalf of fallen humanity that the compassionate Christ was made to appear in His humiliation. ... Christ gave evidence that all Satan's taunts could not call Him from His allegiance to His Father. The very purity of His principles was assailed, but He gave evidence of the mighty power that was in Him." {16MR 86, 87}

The contrast seems to be that Adam's dignity wasn't assailed, while Christ's was. Yet Adam fell but Christ didn't. One thing is sure: "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" refer to character. Notice what is said about Christ: "The very purity of His principles was assailed, but He gave evidence of the mighty power that was in Him."

[ July 27, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/27/05 04:15 PM

quote:
You can't say He had our biological constitution but deny He had the things that that constituion has (which is sin in its tendency).
Tom,

Returning to this statement of yours, I would like you to examine the following quotations:

"There is a great work to be done for many of us. Our minds and characters must become as the mind and character of Christ. Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance, and has been cherished by many as a precious treasure." {HS 138.7}

"Fathers and mothers may study their own character in their children. They may often read humiliating lessons as they see their own imperfections reproduced in their sons and daughters. While seeking to repress and correct in their children hereditary tendencies to evil, parents should call to their aid double patience, perseverance, and love. ... Manifest the meekness and gentleness of Christ in dealing with the wayward little ones. Always bear in mind that they have received their perversity as an inheritance from the father or mother. Then bear with the children who have inherited your own trait of character. Parents must trust implicitly in the power of Christ to transform the tendencies to wrong which have been transmitted to their children." {AH 173, 174}

"They have inherited the defective characters of their parents, and the discipline of the home has been no help in the formation of right character.--CT 192 (1913)." {2MCP 550.1}

So yes, children inherit their sinful traits of character from their parents, but Christ was not a common Child. His Father was God, and it was from Him that Christ inherited His character.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/27/05 07:21 PM

Character is not inherited, it is developed. Christ was not only human, but divine as well. His inheritance was identical to ours as far as His humanity was concerned, as several SOP statements bring out, including the following:

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors.(DA 49)
So my understanding is that Christ was physically or genetically or biologically, however you want to put it, like us. He accepted the results of the working of the great law of herdity, including the results shown by His earthly ancestors, which were, of course, every sort of sin and vice imaginable. These were the "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil" refered to in the quote I mentioned previously, as I see things.

Now it is important to bear in mind that it *is* possible (necessary in fact, if we want to correctly understand things) to separate the flesh from the mind, or the will. The SOP tells us that the flesh of itself cannot sin. There must be the consent of the mind before sin takes place. On this point Christ was different than every other person who has ever lived. His mind never consented. He never sinned by thought, word or deed, even though He had to meet the same temptations we meet, including the temptations of the flesh. And of course another way He was different than every other human being is that He was not *only* human. He was by nature not human, but divine (and sinless).

I hope this is clear and makes sense. If some point is unclear, or you disagree on some point, I'll await your comments.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 12:22 AM

Rosangela, I believe the best solution to understanding the humanity and divinity of Jesus is the fact He was born, as it were, born again. As such, He was not born a slave to sin, like we are. Unlike us, Jesus did not automatically act out the dictates of His fallen flesh nature.

He was born with the clamorings of His sinful flesh under the control of a sanctified mind and will. It is this aspect that is mysterious to us. How can a baby "keep under my body, and bring it into subjection"? But that's exactly what happened.

Though tempted in every way we are, from within and from without, Jesus never consented to sin. He was a partaker of the divine nature in the same way born again believers partake of the divine nature. He did not partake of His own divinity to resist temptation, rather, as our example, He was a partaker of the Father's divine nature. He resisted His sinful flesh nature in the same way born again believers must resist it.

Also, there is a difference between inheriting sinful TRAITS of character and inheriting sinful character. Everyone, including Jesus, inherits sinful traits of character, but no one inherits sinful character. Character is the stuff of choice and habits. We are not guilty of the sinful traits of character that we inherit from our ancestors. We are only held accountable for the traits of character that we ourselves develop into character, which is what we do by acting out the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated to us by our sinful flesh nature.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 12:56 AM

I mostly agree with MM. Just some subtle differences regarding how Jesus was able be sinless as a child. However, it's bordering on speculation to be too dogmatic on some of these things.

I agree with the statements MM made regarding heredity and not relying in His own divine power to overcome.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 01:14 AM

Tom and Mike,

"Each soul inherits certain un-Christlike traits of character. It is the grand and noble work of a lifetime to keep under control these tendencies to wrong." {HP 231.2}

Our inherited tendencies to wrong, or propensities to sin, are the un-Christlike traits of character our parents transmit to us.

1) From whom did Christ inherit His traits of character - from His mother or from His Father?

2) Ellen White calls un-Christlike the wrong traits of character we inherit. How could Christ possess un-Christlike traits of character?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 01:27 AM

R: Tom and Mike,

"Each soul inherits certain un-Christlike traits of character. It is the grand and noble work of a lifetime to keep under control these tendencies to wrong." {HP 231.2}

Our inherited tendencies to wrong, or propensities to sin, are the un-Christlike traits of character our parents transmit to us.

1) From whom did Christ inherit His traits of character - from His mother or from His Father?

2) Ellen White calls un-Christlike the wrong traits of character we inherit. How could Christ possess un-Christlike traits of character?

Tom: Addressing the questions in reverse order, I think "traits of character" in this context would have to be understood as that which would be available through the genetic code. Christ accepted the law of heredity, and it results, as shown by His ancestors. So the "trait" was a potential trait, one which could have been developed into a full-fledged actual trait, if His mind had not always consented to the will of His Father. The potential was there in His flesh, just like for all of us, but it was never developed.

Christ's human heredity came from His mother, as Christ's Father was not human.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 08:31 AM

Rosangela, the quote you posted applies to born again believers. If we combine all the quotes that have been posted regarding being born again and being able to partake of the divine nature and being able to keep unchristlike tendencies and propensities under the control of a sanctified mind and will – we end up with a complete picture.

As I see it, the picture looks like this: Jesus was born, as it were, born again, which means He partook of the divine nature and kept His inherited human traits of character under the control of a sanctified mind and will, and He did it in exactly the same way born again believers must do it. We are no more guilty than was Jesus for inheriting unholy traits of character from our parents. We are not guilty of them until we turn them into character, which, of course, Jesus never did.

Again, traits or tendencies are not character, rather character is the result of choosing to sin over and over again. Traits are inherited, whereas, character is cultivated. Do you see a difference between an inherited trait of character and a cultivated character trait?

“The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts.” (SC 57)

“It is not through one act that the character is formed, but by a repetition of acts that habits are established and character confirmed.” (ST 4-30-1894)
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 05:01 PM

This is how we begin in life:

“Children inherit inclinations to wrong, but they also have many lovely traits of character. These should be strengthened and developed, while the tendencies to evil should be carefully guarded against and repressed.” {RH, January 24, 1907 par. 7}

This work begins with our parents, if they are Christians, and we proceed with it, after we are born again:

“We need not retain one sinful propensity. . . As we partake of the divine nature, hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong are cut away from the character, and we are made a living power for good.” {Mar 225.7}

We must cut away all the evil traits (selfishness) from our character, whether inherited or cultivated, and reach a point where only the positive traits (love) remain to be developed. When this is accomplished, we reflect the image of God fully.

“Those who receive the seal of the living God and are protected in the time of trouble must reflect the image of Jesus fully.” {Mar 254.1}

Now, if you think that Jesus had hereditary evil tendencies, this means that, until He cut away all of them from His character, He didn’t reflect the image of God fully - He didn’t reflect perfectly God’s character of love. But this is not what happened. He was the perfect image of His Father and reflected fully His character of love to the world, from the moment He was born to the moment He died.

“Christ came to the earth and stood before the children of men with the hoarded love of eternity, and this is the treasure that through our connection with Him we are to receive, to reveal, and to impart.” {SpTB04 9}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/29/05 06:52 AM

The Spirit of Prophesy is clear that Christ accepted the law of heredity:

quote:
Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. (DA 49)
The evil tendencies which existed in the genetic code never appeared in Christ's life because His mind never consented. The flesh of itself cannot sin; it must receive an "OK" from the mind. Christ never gave that OK.

He had the same potential for evil resident in His flesh which we have, but the potential was perfectly kept in check.

The difference was not in Christ's flesh, but in His mind.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 08:25 PM

Tom,

Inherited, as well as cultivated, tendencies to evil must be cut away from the character. I understand that if you have a tendency to murmuring, for instance, it won´t remain for ever with you, but it will be eliminated from your life; it will disappear. The evil must be separated from the character.

"Here Christ would teach us that the character-building needs close and careful attention. This is the work that Judas' keen perception might have discerned if he had received the lessons which Christ sought to teach him. His objectionable traits of character would then have disappeared, and he would have become meek and lowly of heart, like his Master. {ST, May 20, 1897 par. 9}

"And this work is something that we as well as Judas must do. Those who have hereditary tendencies to evil, those who are putting forth thorn branches to wound all with whom they come in contact, should see that the offending members are cut away. Painful as this work may be of separating the evil from our character, it must be done. Selfishness and covetousness, which is idolatry; the harsh and unkind spirit, that, manifested in word or deed, will wound and destroy souls, must be taken out of the life, or the entire man will become offensive to himself and to God. His hard-heartedness will cause him to neglect the very ones who need his help. {ST, May 20, 1897 par. 10} ...

"This is the bread which came down from heaven, even the Word of God. And this Word, received and appropriated by the living agents, will produce that faith which works by love, and purifies the soul. It will cut away the hereditary tendencies to evil, and the wrong traits of character that have been strengthened by cultivation. However dearly we may prize these, it is better to separate them from our life practise now than to have their predominating power defiling and corrupting the whole man. And not only this, they destroy our influence for good, and, instead of being a savor of life unto life, we become a savor of death unto death." {ST, May 20, 1897 par. 12}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 08:28 PM

quote:
As we partake of the divine nature, hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong are cut away from the character, and we are made a living power for good.
Rosangela, this insight cannot be interpreted to mean we inherit our parents character. "... character is not inherited." Here's the context of this qoute:

PP 223
An upright character is of greater worth than the gold of Ophir. Without it none can rise to an honorable eminence. But character is not inherited. It cannot be bought. Moral excellence and fine mental qualities are not the result of accident. The most precious gifts are of no value unless they are improved. The formation of a noble character is the work of a lifetime and must be the result of diligent and persevering effort. God gives opportunities; success depends upon the use made of them. {PP 223.1}

Also, Jesus was not born with a fully developed character. He developed a well rounded character as He grew from childhood to manhood.

COL 331
But Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-round character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard, stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected. {COL 331.1}

Jesus learned “obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Hebrews 5:8, 9) “For it became him . . . to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Hebrews 2:10) Jesus had to develop a perfect character the same as born again believers.

DA 762
The law requires righteousness, a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God’s holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. (DA 762)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 08:37 PM

Rosangela, we need to balance your last list of quotes with this one:

AA 560, 561
Sanctification is not the work of a moment, an hour, a day, but of a lifetime. It is not gained by a happy flight of feeling, but is the result of constantly dying to sin, and constantly living for Christ. Wrongs cannot be righted nor reformations wrought in the character by feeble, intermittent efforts. It is only by long, persevering effort, sore discipline, and stern conflict, that we shall overcome. We know not one day how strong will be our conflict the next. So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained. Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience. {AA 560.3}

We will never be able to totally silence the voice of our sinful flesh nature. We can eliminate much of it, but not all of it. Not until Jesus returns and replaces our sinful flesh nature with a sinless one will we be free from its unholy clamorings. We are not, however, guilty of the stuff that survives until the day Jesus returns. We are only guilty if we act them out or turn them into character.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/28/05 08:41 PM

Also, what do you think about this insight?
quote:
Again, traits or tendencies are not character, rather character is the result of choosing to sin over and over again. Traits are inherited, whereas, character is cultivated. Do you see a difference between an inherited trait of character and a cultivated character trait?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/29/05 02:23 AM

R: Tom,

Inherited, as well as cultivated, tendencies to evil must be cut away from the character. I understand that if you have a tendency to murmuring, for instance, it won´t remain for ever with you, but it will be eliminated from your life; it will disappear. The evil must be separated from the character.

Tom: The tendencies only need to be cut away if they've been exercized. If they are a tendency only in potential, but not in actual practise, there is nothing to cut out.

For example, say may ancestry is such that I have a genetic tendency towards alcoholism, but I have never drank. I have an inherited tendency towards evil (alcholism), but I do not need to have it "cut away" because I have never exercized that evil which I had a tendency toward.

So Christ accepted the great law of heredity, just as we do, and the results of which are shown in his ancestry, which is every type of vice and sin. He inherited the same tendencies which we do, and for the very reason the Spirit of Prophesy points out; in order to share in our temptations and sorrows, and give us the example of a sinless life.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/29/05 05:45 AM

quote:
The tendencies only need to be cut away if they've been exercized. If they are a tendency only in potential, but not in actual practise, there is nothing to cut out.
Excellent point, Tom. I like to refer to them as dormant defects, which are harmless, that is, until or unless they are awakened. If they ever rear their ugly head we are not guilty unless we cherish the thought, or act it out in word or deed. It's not necessary to sin first in order to become aware of it, or in order to resist it the first time.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/29/05 08:16 AM

quote:
It's not necessary to sin first in order to become aware of it, or in order to resist it the first time.
This is true. It's also the case that one need not sin in order to repent of it.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/29/05 07:27 PM

Tom and Mike,

When Ellen White says character is not inherited, she is referring to a noble character, an upright character; this, in fact, cannot be inherited from sinful parents; it must be formed. But children do inherit a character; it’s just not fully developed.

"They [children] have inherited the defective characters of their parents, and the discipline of the home has been no help in the formation of right character.--CT 192 (1913)." {2MCP 550.1}

“Characters are not formed in one mold. There is every phase of character received by children as an inheritance. The defects and the virtues in traits of character are thus revealed. ... Hereditary and cultivated deformity of human character, as also beauty of character, will have to be met, and much grace cultivated in the instructor to know how to deal with the erring for their present and eternal good.” {FE 277.1}

“But many have inherited traits of character that in no way represent the divine Model. There are many who have some defect of character received as a birthright, which they have not overcome, but have cherished as though it were fine gold, and brought with them into their religious experience. In many cases these traits are retained through the entire life.” {5T 418.1}

Look at what Ellen white says: defective character inherited, hereditary deformity of human character, defects of character received as a birthright.

We are born with a defective, deformed character, and this character must be transformed:

“The human character is depraved, deformed by sin, and terribly unlike that of the first man as he came from the hands of the Creator.” {YRP 57.3}

“God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. There were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, no corrupt propensities or tendencies to evil.” {AG 344.3}

Adam came from the hands of the Creator with a character, that is, he had a character before he did something and before he formed habits. We also are born with a character before we form habits; it’s just not fully developed. Adam’s character was perfect; ours is imperfect. The corrupt principles, corrupt propensities and tendencies to evil which we inherit makes the character we inherit deformed. Was Christ born with a deformed character?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/29/05 08:13 PM

quote:
Was Christ born with a deformed character?
Of course not.

However, the quotes you posted must be understood in the broader context of Sister White's ideas and insights regarding the differences between inherited traits and cultivated traits. It is obvious, to me, that she didn't always insert the word "trait" when she wrote about inheriting character. It is implied, though, based on the larger context.

She makes it very clear that character is the result of repeatedly doing something. Character cannot be inherited. We inherit our parents traits and propensities, but we do not inherit the character they themselves hammered out over the years. Remember, character is what determines our eternal destiny during judgment, and nobody can do that for us. We are saved or lost based on the character we ourselves develop, not on what we inherit.

As humans, before we experience the miracle of rebirth, we naturally, insitinctively act out the unholy clamorings we inherited from our parents. As a result we begin developing sinful character the moment we are capable of consciousness. We develop sinful character by default.

Jesus, on the other hand, was born, as it were, born again. As such, He did not naturally act out the unholy clamorings He inherited from Mary. Instead, by the grace of God, and in ways that haven't been completely explained to us, Jesus partook of His Father's divine nature, like a born again believer, and was able to resist the temptations communicated to His mind via His sinful flesh nature.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/30/05 01:26 AM

Mike,

You said,
quote:
We are saved or lost based on the character we ourselves develop, not on what we inherit.
Mike, the moment we are born we start developing our character. Long before we reach the age of accountability, our character already determines our eternal destiny.

"Some parents allow Satan to control their children, and their children are not restrained, but are allowed to have wicked tempers, to be passionate, selfish, and disobedient. Should they die these children would not be taken to heaven. The parent's course of action is determining the future welfare of their children. If they allow them to be disobedient and passionate they are allowing Satan to take them in charge and work through them as shall please his satanic majesty, and these children, never educated to obedience and to lovely traits of character, will not be taken to heaven, for the same temper and disposition would be revealed in them." {3SM 314.4}

A trait of character is just an aspect, quality or characteristic of your character. A defective trait of character makes the character defective and will inevitably be manifested in the life, as you pointed out. This is what happens to all of us.

Your explanation doesn't work because a born-again believer must continually choose not to manifest wrong traits of character, but a little child can't do this. Even if Jesus had been born born again, if He had wrong traits of character He would have had to choose not to manifest them, which is something impossible for a little child to do. Thus, in some mysterious way He would have had an advantage over us.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/30/05 01:38 AM

Rosangela: You're making quite a few assumptions here. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us that how Christ remained sinless as a child is a mystery unexplained to mortals. So I don't think your inferences are valid. We simply don't know how Christ remained sinless as a small child. That's what inspiration tells us.

What we do know is that His heredity was like ours, warts and all. However, His character was sinless (but not His flesh).
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/30/05 03:44 AM

Tom,

What inspirations tells us is that Christ "was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called ´that holy thing.´ It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin."
This says nothing about Christ being tempted as a baby, but about the temptations of Christ during His whole life.
Who said Satan is able to tempt babies? They sure can manifest evil traits of character, and if these are not corrected by the parents, Satan controls the child in the sense that they are manifesting His attributes. But who said he can tempt them?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/30/05 08:25 AM

quote:
His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord shall give unto him the throne of his Father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall


-19-

be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." {13MR 18.2}

These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing. It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the rock, Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity. {13MR 19.1}

It's not clear that this is dealing with the earliest moments of Christ's life? How Christ was able to overcome sin after He reached the age of accountability is no mystery at all. We are given tons of insight regarding that. It's only His very early human life where this is a mystery.

That Christ was called that "holy thing" is no surprise, since Christ was God incarnate. God is holy, no doubt about it.

Regarding Satan tempting babies, I don't care. This is a non issue, totally irrelevant to the main point, which is a simple one.

quote:
Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}
Christ accepted the results of the law of heredity, like we all do, the results of which, for Christ, are shown in the history of His ancestor's lives, which include every sort of vice and sin.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/30/05 01:03 PM

It seems to me she is referring to Christ as "this holy thing" as a human being, not just as a foetus. What is said to be a mystery is that "Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin." But this cannot refer to His life as a baby, because babies are not tempted.

"He could not have been tempted in all points like as man is tempted had there been no possibility of His failing. He was a free agent, placed on probation, as was Adam and as is man. Unless there is a possibility of yielding, temptation is no temptation. Temptation comes and is resisted when man is powerfully influenced to do a wrong action, and knowing that he can do it, resists by faith with a firm hold upon divine power."--Manuscript 29, March 17, 1899, "Sacrificed for Us." {UL 90.5}

Babies don't know anything and babies don't have faith, so babies can't be tempted nor can they resist temptation. Therefore this sentence doesn't apply to Christ's early life at all.

As to Christ's heredity, of course it can't be said it was in every particular like ours, since He didn't have a human father. His incarnation is a mystery, so you can't be dogmatic about it. The Bible says He partook of our flesh and blood, not that He was born with our spiritual deformity; and Ellen White is clear that not for a moment was there in Christ an evil propensity. "Not for a moment" embraces His whole life _ either as a baby, as child, or as an adult; which means clearly that He has never had any propensity to evil - either inherited or cultivated.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/31/05 05:56 AM

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.(DA 49)
There's nothing unclear about this, is there? Christ "accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." I don't know how she could have said this any clearer than this.

As to how Christ overcame temptation, the Bible tells us, so there's no mystery about that, is there? Look at Matthew 4.

It seems clear to me that if you read her statement in context (which I provided) that it is referring especially to the early parts of Christ's life. This is what she had been addressing in the quote, and is the part where people like to speculate. It is this part of His life in which there is mystery.

However, if you wish to read the quote as saying that it's a mystery how Christ could overcome tempation as an adult, that still wouldn't affect anything we have been discussing regarding Christ's heredity (although it seems to me not to be in harmony with Scripture, which provides much information as to how Christ overcame). Christ accepted the working of the law heredity, as shown above.

The position of our church had unilataerally been for about a century that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. Ellen White held this position, as well as Haskell, Jone, Prescott, Waggoner, Wilcox, Daniels, Nichols, just to name a few names off the top of our head. Bible Readings for the home held this position. Our Sabbath School Quarterlies held this position. All the published editorials from the Review and Herald held this position, as well as all the published works of the church, until 1947 when some alternate views started to come in.

Shortly after the 1888 GC, when Jones and Waggoner's message was resisted by the leadership, she toured with them, presenting the message they had been preaching with them. There were questions regarding what they had been preaching regarding the human nature of Christ. She wrote:

quote:
Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature. (RH 2/18/90)
She was preaching the same message as Jones and Waggoner, and defended the postlapsarian position, as was as eloquently stating it herself (as quoted above).

Finally regarding the "that Holy thing" quote, it was Luke who wrote that, quoting what the angels had said. As to why they referred to Christ as "that holy thing" it is my opinion that it was because they had known Christ personally, and regarded Him as holy because that's how they knew Him. Since so little was said, I don't know how any point of view regarding this question could be established.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 07/31/05 02:22 PM

Tom,

Let me put it simply. One of the things we inherit from our parents is the carnal mind. Adam was created with a spiritual mind, but we are born with a carnal mind, which is at enmity with God and not subject to His law. Was Jesus born with this carnal mind?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/01/05 08:48 AM

What makes you think we are born with a carnal mind? No, Jesus was not born with a carnal mind. He had the mind of Christ. However, His flesh was the same as ours, just as inspiration states.

The mystery of godliness is that the mind of Christ may be manifested in sinful flesh. This is just what Christ did, and what we may do through faith in Him. As He overcame by faith in God, so we may overcome.

This is the message that Jones, Waggoner, White, Prescott, etc., etc. preached.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/01/05 01:59 PM

"Jesus continued: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' By nature the heart is evil, and 'who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.' Job 14:4. No human invention can find a remedy for the sinning soul. 'The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.' 'Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.' Rom. 8:7; Matt. 15:19. The fountain of the heart must be purified before the streams can become pure. ... The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit." {DA 172.1}

We are not born with a spiritual mind, but with a carnal mind, or carnal heart, which is at enmity with God and is not subject to His law. Christ, however, was not born with a carnal mind:

"Have they the spiritual mind, the mind of Christ, that delights in the law of God?" {ST, November 24, 1887 par. 4}

So you agree that Jesus' heredity was in this aspect different from ours?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/01/05 10:36 PM

It seems to me that Christ's heredity was the same as ours:

quote:
But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. (DA 49)
This does say Christ accepted the results of our heredity, which "results were ... shown in the history of His earthly ancestor." Those results were every kind of sin and vice, correct?

The following seems to me to put things nicely:

quote:
One more point and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." How was it that Christ could be thus "compassed with infirmity" (Heb. 5:2) and still know no sin? Some may have thought, while reading thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus by bringing Him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the "Divine power" of our blessed Saviour, who Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man in order that He might exalt man to His own spotless purity, which He retained under the most adverse circumstances. His humanity only veiled His Divine nature, by which He was inseparably connected with the invisible God and which was more than able successfully to resist the weaknesses of the flesh. There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harbored an evil desire nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory. (Christ and His Righteousness)
Here's another one from EGW:

quote:
"Many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and therefore we cannot overcome as He overcame. But this is not true; 'for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. . . . For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted.' Christ knows the sinner's trials; He knows his temptations. He took upon Himself our nature. . . . The Christian's . . . strongest temptations will come from within; for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart. The Lord knows our weaknesses. . . . Every struggle against sin, every effort to conform to the law of God, is Christ working through His appointed agencies upon the human heart. Oh, if we could comprehend what Jesus is to us!" (Christ Tempted As We Are, pp. 3, 4, 11; 1894).
quote:
Satan beguiled the holy pair to their own destruction, and introduced an element of character that was antagonistic to God and to their fellow-creatures. Before the entrance of sin, the hearts of God's children had been filled with love toward their Creator, and they were in harmony with his will; but upon yielding to the tempter a warring element began to work in the human agent.{ST, December 12, 1895 par. 7}
In order to overturn this force from within, from which our strongest temptations arise, Christ took our nature. It is only because He overcame that we are able to overcome. We can do nothing which He did not do.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/02/05 02:14 PM

Tom,

Then we can't be in agreement, for, as I said, Christ had two natures but He could not be two persons. He couldn't at the same time possess a carnal mind and a spiritual mind. He couldn't at the same time have the law of God in His heart and be disinclined to obey it. These things are mutually exclusive. If such a situation was possible, which it isn't, it would produce a spiritual aberration.

"No man can keep the law of God apart from Christ, and God will not accept his unaided efforts. The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

Just look at the quote you yourself provided:

"Satan beguiled the holy pair to their own destruction, and introduced an element of character that was antagonistic to God and to their fellow-creatures."

The character of God is expressed in His law. A tendency to sin is a trait of character which is not in conformity with the law of God. A tendency to sin is a trait of character which is in opposition to the divine will. A tendency to sin is a trait of character which is not in harmony with the divine character. Christ has always reflected the character of God perfectly. He had no element in His character which was antagonistic to God. He is the express image of God's person. He could not have tendencies to sin and still reflect the perfection of God's character, for God's character doesn't have and can't have any tendencies to sin.

He did have all the strong passions of human nature which Satan uses to lead us to sin. But this is completely different from saying that He had traits of character not in harmony with the law of God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/02/05 05:25 PM

I'm having difficulty telling where we are in disagreement. When I'm saying is that Christ accepted the results of the great law of heredity, which results are shown by his ancestors, which includes every sort of vice and sin. Do you agree up to this point?

I'm also saying that Christ took the same flesh we have. There was no difference between His flesh and ours. Do you agree with this?

I'm also saying that Christ did not ask us to do something which He Himself did not do. Do you agree with this?

Let's start with these three questions, then we can go on.

Regarding Christ not being two persons, the way this is treated by inspiration (both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy) is by distinguishing between the mind and the flesh. Christ had the mind of Christ (imagine that!), but He took our flesh. The flesh, however, is not another person (although it may seem to be so at times). The flesh can, and does, tempt us, and it can, and did, tempt Christ as it tempts us. However, it is only when the mind acceeds to the temptations of the flesh that sin comes into the picture. Christ never did this. So while He was tempted in all points as we are (including temptations from within), He never yielded to temptation.

The differences of Christ and us are two-fold:
1)Christ never yielded to temptation.
2)Christ was not only human.

The similarity is also two-fold:
1)Christ accepted the results of the great law of heredity.
2)Christ was tempted in all points as we are.

One last point is that the SDA church had only one view on this question for over 100 years. It is difficult for me to conceive of the situation where Ellen White actually preached with Jones and Waggoner and defended their (i.e. hers and Jones and Waggoner's) views on the subject; sat and listened to W. W. Prescott preach on the subject, and strongly endorsed his view; read the dozens of articles in our papers; sent S. N. Haskel to represent our view, and read his reports about it;listened to E. J. Waggoner argue against the Holy Flesh movement using this view at the G. C. Session; while all the while secretly holding to some other view, without anyone even so much as guessing that this was the case. Just like we can know the Sabbath was not an issue in N.T. times, we can know the humanity of Christ was not an issue for the first 100 years of our church, and in particular during the time when Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott (as well as EGW!) were speaking and writing about it, because nothing was ever mentioned about it (except to those outside our faith, wondering what we believed, in which case it was defeneded and explained).

So if one wants to know what her views were, it is sufficient to read either her or any of the other of dozens of other Adventists who wrote on the subject. Just as there was only one view on the Sabbath, or the state of the dead, there was only one view regarding the human nature of Christ.
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/02/05 10:04 PM

The "two natures" problem is untangled when we come to realize that humans have a higher spiritual nature and a lower physical nature. Jesus had the same lower physical nature that we have, but His higher spiritual nature never descended into committing sin, as ours has.

Ellen White wrote extensively about the two natures. See Kevin Paulson's article, "The Lower and Higher Natures," at

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-lhnature.php3

I suppose I also should say here that there's no evidence in Inspiration that we're born with carnal minds. Quite the contrary. The carnal mind is something that's developed later on, as the result of choices made.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/03/05 01:07 AM

Thanks John for the reference. I was not familiar with that article. It was well written.

Here's a statement referred to in the footnotes:

quote:
The lessons of Christ upon the occasion of receiving the children, should leave a deeper impression upon our minds. The words of Christ encourage parents to bring their little ones to Jesus. They may be wayward, and possess passions like those of humanity, but this should not deter us from bringing them to Christ. He blessed children that were possessed of passions like his own.(ST 1/9/96)
What you said about the carnal mind is how I see things too.

It's a difficult subject to parse things exactly right on, and I think the author did a good job.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/03/05 07:41 PM

Rosangela, where does it say Satan cannot, or does, not tempt infants or babies?

The fact Jesus did not have an evil propensity is also true of born again believers. “We need not retain one sinful propensity.” (7BC 943) What can we infer from this insight regarding the human nature of Jesus?

I agree with you that we begin developing character even before we are born, and that by the time we are born character development is well under way. We are not static beings. From the moment of consciousness, which begins in the womb, we continually develop character.

I also agree with you that Jesus was not incarnated with a carnal mind. Unlike us, Jesus was conceived and born like a born again believer. Consequently, He never was under the dominion of sin, self, and Satan. No one, however, is conceived with a carnal mind. It is something that is developed as we react and respond to the myriad of influences that affect us from the moment of consciousness.

But I also agree with Tom that Jesus inherited the same sinful flesh nature that born again believers possess, which is the same as they had at conception and birth. This nature has a mind and voice of its own, which continually tempts us to meet our legitimate needs (i.e., appetites and passions) in a sinful way. Jesus, unlike us, never acted them out. He never cherished them in thought, and never acted them out in word or deed.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/05/05 06:11 AM

Mike,

Either we are born with a spiritual mind or with a carnal mind. If we are born with a disinclination to truth and virtue, that is, with a disinclination to obey the law of God, it seems obvious to me that we are born with a carnal mind.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/05/05 06:29 AM

What does Ellen white mean by passions?

1- Appetites, bodily passions, not evil in themselves, but which become evil if not continually subject to the control of reason:

“The will, the appetites and passions, will clamour for indulgence, but God has implanted within you desires for high and holy purposes, and it is not necessary that these should be debased. This is only so when we refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. We are to restrain our passions and deny self.” {19MR 327.1}

Christ had these and Satan used them to tempt Him:

Of all the lessons to be learned from our Lord's first great temptation, none is more important than that bearing upon the control of the appetites and passions. In all ages, temptations appealing to the physical nature have been most effectual in corrupting and degrading mankind. ... His example declares that our only hope of eternal life is through bringing the appetites and passions into subjection to the will of God.” {TSDF 154.1}

These remain forever with the human being and must be restrained during his whole life.

2- Passions with which all of us are endowed, which are not evil in themselves, but can become evil, like anger and ambition. There is unselfish/holy anger and ambition, and selfish/unholy anger and ambition:

“It is true there is an indignation that is justifiable, even in the followers of Christ. When they see that God is dishonored and His service brought into disrepute, when they see the innocent oppressed, a righteous indignation stirs the soul. Such anger, born of sensitive morals, is not a sin.”--DA 310

“The holy ambition that He [Chirst] revealed in His life they are to cherish--an ambition to make the world better for their having lived in it.” {CC 371.5}

Christ also had these and Satan used them to tempt Him:

“Satan sought to tempt Christ not only to indulge the grosser passions and to yield to appetite, but he appealed to His ambition. Notwithstanding the enemy's determined efforts, Christ did not manifest a grasping spirit to gain possession of the kingdoms of this world. He did not worship Satan to gain worldly wealth.” {18MR 113.3}

“Christ [in the desert] knew that Satan was a liar from the beginning, and it required strong self-control to listen to the propositions of this insulting deceiver and not instantly rebuke his bold assumptions.” {Con 44.3}

“None of the people, not even the disciples, understood the nature of Christ's kingdom. O, how his patience must have been taxed by the low estimate placed by men upon his mission and character!” {ST, July 1, 1897 par. 6}

These also remain forever in the human being and must also be continually under the control of a sanctified reason during the whole life.

3- What is definitely called evil passions (also called sinful inclinations/propensities/traits of character):

“They cherish pride, envy, and hatred, and contention springs from these evil passions.” {BEcho, March 19, 1894 par. 2}

“Ambition, covetousness, vanity, inordinate affection, malice, revenge, and envy, carry with them a weight of woe. The exercise of evil passions sows a harvest after their kind that will bring no pleasure to reap.” {ST, February 24, 1890 par. 2}

These may be inherited or cultivated. We know that Christ did not cultivate any evil passion/propensity, but did He inherit them?

The problem involved here is that to every sinful passion/propensity corresponds a propensity to virtue that you lack. For instance, you cannot have at the same time a propensity to impatience and a propensity to patience, can you? a propensity to lasciviousness and a propensity to purity; a propensity to unholy temper and a propensity to meekness; a propensity to dishonesty and a propensity to honesty; a propensity to doubt and a propensity to faith; a propensity to self-sufficiency and a propensity to dependence on God; a propensity to selfishness and a propensity to unselfishness; a propensity to pride and a propensity to humility; a propensity to self-indulgence and a propensity to self-denial and self-control; and the list goes. If you are born with one you are not born with the other.

The idea being proposed here is that in His humanity Christ had a propensity, for instance, to self-indulgence, while in His divinity He had a propensity to self-denial; that in His humanity He had a propensity to unholy temper while in His divinity He had a propensity to meekness; that in His humanity He had a propensity to selfishness while in His humanity He had a propensity to unselfishness; and so on. I cannot accept this idea because it constitutes a spiritual aberration.

“Those who are indeed adopted into the family of God are transformed by His Spirit. Self-indulgence and love for self is changed for self-denial and supreme love for God.” {ST, June 14, 1905 par. 6}

Both cannot subsist together. It’s either one or the other. And nobody can be perfect in character until he has all the virtues of God and all sinful tendencies are cut away from the character.

Another thing to be considered is that it is being proposed that Christ had something evil in Himself, for evil passions or propensities are just that - evil, and originated with Satan.

“Many who claim to be children of God are children of the wicked one, and have all his passions, ... his unlovely traits of character." {SW 13.2}

These passions/propensities/traits of character are un-Christlike:

“But many have inherited traits of character that in no way represent the divine Model.” {5T 418.1}

“For they [many] have an inheritance of unchristlike traits of character that are strong by heredity, and stronger by cultivation. The least crossing of their will arouses their combativeness and upsets their temper” {ST, September 12, 1892 par. 3}

Saying that Christ had un-Christlike things in Him is an absurd oxymoron.

Two more things should be noted:

1- Although someone may not have a propensity for a sin, he still can be tempted to commit that sin. Thus, Adam and Eve had no propensity to doubt, covetousness, intemperance or selfishness, yet they fell in all these sins.

2- The temptations of Christ go beyong ours:

“Satan thought that by his temptations he could delude the world's Redeemer, to make one bold move in manifesting his divine power, to create a sensation, and to surprise all by the wonderful display of the power of his Father in preserving him from injury. ... He had received honor in the heavenly courts, and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures, and be partakers of the divine nature. Christ was put to the closest test, requiring the strength of all his faculties to resist the inclination when in danger, to use his power to deliver himself from peril, and triumph over the power of the prince of darkness. Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart, and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the humanity which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his temptations on man's account.” {RH, April 1, 1875}

As all human beings, Christ didn't want to suffer and didn't want to die, and Satan tempted Him to use His power, for He had the power to command stones to become bread, to come down from the cross and go back to heaven, to fulminate His opposers, and to operate miracles to deliver Himself from peril.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/05/05 06:35 AM

I agree with you. We are born with a carnal mind. We are also born with a sinful nature and its sinful propensities, which we naturally, instinctively cultivate as sinful character.

But Jesus was born born again, and the fact He did not have an evil propensity is also true of born again believers. “We need not retain one sinful propensity.” (7BC 943)

What can we infer from this insight regarding the human nature of Jesus?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/05/05 05:23 PM

quote:
But Jesus was born born again, and the fact He did not have an evil propensity is also true of born again believers.
Mike,

But to born-again believers this is a gradual experience. How do you view this in Jesus' case?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/06/05 06:01 AM

That's just it, Rosangela, I haven't found where the Bible or the SOP teaches that we gradually outgrow, after we are born again, our inherited or cultivated evil propensities. The human nature of Jesus is evidence that we are born again without our old man sinful character. His experience teaches us that born-again believers keep their appetites and passions under the control of a sanctified mind and will.

“We need not retain one evil propensity” means not cherishing sin in our heart, or not acting it out in word or deed. Our sinful flesh nature will, even after we crucify our old man habits of sin, continue to generate and communicate unholy thoughts and feelings, which we must recognize and resist as the mind and voice of Satan.

We will never totally silence the mind and voice of our sinful flesh nature. It will continue to harass us with the unholy thoughts and feelings, which, at least initially, are nothing more than temptations. Sinful nature will continue to bombard us in one way or another until the day Jesus returns and replaces it with a sinless nature, like the one Adam and Eve possessed on the day they were created.

In the meantime, like Jesus, we must consciously choose every moment of every day to stay connected to the Source of all power, to continue walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, to continue partaking of the divine nature. So long as we do these things we will “never fall”, we “cannot sin”, we will not “ fulfil the lust of the flesh.” (2 Peter 1:10, 1 John 3:9, and Galatians 5:16) Which is exactly what Jesus did, and He is our perfect example.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/05/05 09:35 PM

Rosangela:
1) Did you read Paulsen's article which John H. posted? Did you agree with it?
2) Ellen White distuishes between cultivated and inherited tendencies to evil. Christ had the latter, but not the former, as He accepted the working of the great law of heredity, the result of which is seen in Christ's ancerstors. In writing: "What is definitely called evil passions (also called sinful inclinations/propensities/traits of character):" you are making the assumption that EGW uses these terms completely synonomously, but you have not established this point. In fact, it is clear that she does not use these terms synonomously because some of these terms she applies to Christ, and some she doesn't.
3)"Saying that Christ had un-Christlike things in Him is an absurd oxymoron." What do you think this is:
quote:
5:21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
4)The following points are not relevant:

quote:
1- Although someone may not have a propensity for a sin, he still can be tempted to commit that sin. Thus, Adam and Eve had no propensity to doubt, covetousness, intemperance or selfishness, yet they fell in all these sins.

2- The temptations of Christ go beyong ours:

The relevant point is that Christ was in all points tempted as we are, not tempted beyond or in some other way. An earlier quote I provided stated that the difficulties of the Christian are temptations from within, and that Christ understood these difficulties.

Christ was tempted as we are. This is an important point for us to understand. Not for some academic reason, but for the very pracitical one that we may go to Him in time of need, understanding that He knows by personal experience what we are going through when we are tempted, and He knows how to comfort us. This is the very argument Paul makes in Heb. 4 and 5.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/06/05 09:11 PM

Tom,

1) In his article Paulson does not distinguish between natural passions and sinful passions, which is fundamental to a correct understanding of the subject. Natural passions will remain with us our whole life and must be controlled by reason, while sinful passions must definitely be cut away from the character.

2)
quote:
you are making the assumption that EGW uses these terms completely synonomously, but you have not established this point.
“There [at the wide gate] depraved appetite and natural inclinations find abundant room. There may be seen self-indulgence, pride, envy, evil surmisings, love of money, self-exaltation.” {TMK 304.2}

“Self-indulgence, self-pleasing, pride, and extravagance must be renounced. We cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities.” {RH, May 16, 1893 par. 3}

“The ill-balanced mind, the hasty temper, the fretfulness, envy, or jealousy, bear witness to parental neglect. These evil traits of character bring great unhappiness to their possessors.” {CG 207.1}

“They cherish pride, envy, and hatred, and contention springs from these evil passions.” {BEcho, March 19, 1894 par. 2}

quote:
In fact, it is clear that she does not use these terms synonomously because some of these terms she applies to Christ, and some she doesn't.
The terms are synonyms, as shown above, however passions/propensities/inclinations/traits of character may be good or bad, so any of these terms could be applied to Christ; this doesn’t mean she must have applied all of them. I’ve not made a careful analysis, but it seems that passions/inclinations are applied to both physical and moral aspects of man, while propensities/traits are applied just to the moral aspects.

3- Christ was made to be sin for us in terms of imputation. There was no intrinsic sin in Christ. Now, it’s difficult to prove that Satan’s passions/propensities/inclinations/traits of character are not sin.

“Envy is one of the most despicable traits of Satanic character.” {ST, August 17, 1888 par. 6}

“Many who claim to be children of God are children of the wicked one, and have all his passions, ... his unlovely traits of character." {SW 13.2}

"Liquor-drinking encourages the vilest debauchery and strengthens the most satanic propensities. {BTS, July 1, 1902 par. 4}

quote:
The relevant point is that Christ was in all points tempted as we are, not tempted beyond or in some other way. An earlier quote I provided stated that the difficulties of the Christian are temptations from within, and that Christ understood these difficulties.
I’m not sure if by temptations from within you mean something which is intrinsic to us (in this case temptations which involve the body are temptations from within). If, however, by temptations from within you mean what Ellen White says here, then Christ was not tempted from within:

"We must strive daily against outward evil and inward sin, if we would reach the perfection of Christian character". {RH, May 30, 1882 par. 1}

"One may for many years have enjoyed a genuine Christian experience, but he is still exposed to Satan's attacks. In the battle with inward sin and outward temptation, even the wise and powerful Solomon was vanquished." {PK 82.2}

The essence of temptation is always the same, although we are tempted on different points. I will never be tempted on the point of homosexuality, however, I may feel the strength of temptations as much as a homossexual does. Anyway, on tempting Christ on the point of the use of His power, Satan was tempting Him from within, and Christ felt the power of temptation as we feel it:

“He had received honor in the heavenly courts and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for Him to keep the level of humanity as for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures and be partakers of the divine nature.” {Con 85.1}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/07/05 01:10 AM

Rosangela, notice how in this quote Sister White compares born again believers to Jesus Christ. There is no difference between them. We begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth, that is, with a clean slate. We become like Jesus after we are born again.

We resist the same temptations He had to resist. Of course, I'm referring to His humanity. We do not become divine after we are born again. So, whatever Sister White wrote about Jesus is also true of born again believer, that is, so long as they are partaking of the divine nature.

In the same way Jesus grew and developed, both morally and intellectually, so too born again believers will grow and develop, becoming more and more mature as Christians. We do not gradually swap sin for righteousness, or gradually become more and more holy by becoming less and less unholy. That's not how it worked for Jesus, and that's not how it works for us.
quote:
The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity, and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome. {FLB 23.2}

"The prince of this world cometh," said Jesus, "and hath nothing in me." John 14:30. There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan's sophistry. He did not consent to sin. Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So it may be with us. Christ's humanity was united with divinity; He was fitted for the conflict by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And He came to make us partakers of the divine nature. So long as we are united to Him by faith, sin has no more dominion over us. {FLB 23.3}

We need not retain one sinful propensity. . . . As we partake of the divine nature, hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong are cut away from the character, and we are made a living power for good. Ever learning of the divine Teacher, daily partaking of His nature, we cooperate with God in overcoming Satan's temptations. {FLB 23.4}

How this is accomplished, Christ has shown us. By what means did He overcome in the conflict with Satan? By the Word of God. Only by the Word could He resist temptation. "It is written," He said. And unto us are given "exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature. . . ." Every promise in God's Word is ours. . . . When assailed by temptation, look not to circumstances or to the weakness of self, but to the power of the Word. All its strength is yours. {FLB 23.5}

Grasp His promises as leaves from the tree of life: "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37. As you come to Him, believe that He accepts you, because He has promised. You can never perish while you do this--never. {FLB 23.6}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/07/05 01:28 AM

Here's another interesting way Sister White uses the words propensity, human nature, and divine nature:
quote:
Upward Look, page 315

No longer let any evil influence or propensity, natural or acquired, lead you to subordinate the claims of future, eternal interests to the common affairs of this life. No man can serve two masters whose interests are not in harmony. 'Ye cannot serve God and mammon.'". . . {UL 313.5}

Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, and yet He pleased not Himself. He took upon Himself human nature for no other purpose than to place man on vantage ground before the world and the whole heavenly universe. He carries sanctified humanity to heaven, there always to retain humanity as it would have been if man had never violated God's law. The overcomers, who upon the earth were partakers of the divine nature, He makes kings and priests unto God. {UL 313.6}

What is the difference between natural and acquired propensitites? My guess is it's merely another way of differentiating between hereditary (natural) and cultivated (acquired) traits of character. What do you guys think?

EDIT: I'm adding these quotes to this post:

quote:
His life is inconsistent; professedly a Christian, in practice he is yielding to unnatural, sinful propensities that war against the purification and elevation necessary for spiritual superiority. {Te 68.3}

Good works . . . bring us into conflict with natural feelings and propensities, and in fulfilling them we gain victory after victory over the objectionable traits of our characters. {HP 324.6}

While the power of the truth, in all its force, influenced him, he was comparatively safe; but break the force and power of truth upon the mind, and there is no restraint, the natural propensities take the lead, and there is no stopping place. {1T 427.1}

“Said the angel: ‘Sacrifice all for God. Self must die. The natural desires and propensities of the unrenewed heart must be subdued.’” (1T 507)

“The greatest triumph given us by the religion of Christ is control over ourselves. Our natural propensities must be controlled, or we can never overcome as Christ overcame.” (4T 235)

What is the diffrence between natural and unnatural propensities?

[ August 06, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/07/05 01:44 AM

Hre's another helpful insight:

quote:
1MCP 218, 219

TERMS SUCH AS "PASSION" AND "PROPENSITIES" ARE AT TIMES USED. THESE ARE OFTEN QUALIFIED BY SUCH WORDS AS BASER, ANIMAL, LUSTFUL, DEPRAVED, CORRUPT. THIS STRONG LANGUAGE COULD LEAD SOME READERS TO ASSUME THAT ALL PASSION IS CONDEMNED AND ALL SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS EVIL. THE FOLLOWING QUOTATIONS WOULD HARDLY SUSTAIN THIS: {1MCP 218.5}

Not only does God require you to control your thoughts, but also your passions and affections. . . . Passion and affection are powerful agents....Positively guard your thoughts, your passions, and your affections. Do not degrade these to minister to lust. Elevate them [passions and affections] to purity, devote them to God.--2T 561, 564 (1870). {1MCP 218.6}

All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul.--Ms 1, 1888. (AH 128.) {1MCP 219.1}

IN THE SAME CONTEXT IN WHICH SOME OF THE STRONG TERMS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE USED, SHE URGES THAT THE PASSIONS ARE TO BE CONTROLLED BY WHAT SHE CALLED "HIGHER, NOBLER POWERS," "REASON," "MORAL RESTRAINT," AND "MORAL FACULTIES." SHE WRITES OF TEMPERANCE AND MODERATION AND AVOIDING EXCESS. IN MARRIAGE THOSE PASSIONS COMMON TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE TO BE SUBJECT TO CONTROL, THEY ARE TO BE GOVERNED. NOTE AGAIN: {1MCP 219.2}

Those who regard the marriage relation as one of God's sacred ordinances, guarded by His holy precept, will be controlled by the dictates of reason.--HL, No. 2, p. 48. {1MCP 219.3}

Very few feel it to be a religious duty to govern their passions. . . . The marriage covenant covers sin of the darkest hue. . . . Health and life are sacrificed upon the altar of base passion. The higher, nobler powers are brought into subjection to the animal propensities. . . . Love is a pure and holy principle; but lustful passion will not admit of restraint and will not be dictated to or controlled by reason.--2T 472, 473 (1870). {1MCP 219.4}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/07/05 02:43 AM

Here is another very convincing testimony. Once again she compares believers and Christ.

MR No. 1211 - Christ's Humiliation

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}

But the facts of this history are not fable, but a living, acting, experience. [To deny this] would rob Jesus of His greatest glory--allegiance to God--which enshrouded Him as a garment in this world on the field of battle with the relentless foe, and He is not reckoned with the transgressor. He descended in His humiliation to be tempted as man would be tempted, and His nature was that of man, capable of yielding to temptation. His very purity and holiness were assailed by a fallen foe, the very one that became corrupted and then was ejected from heaven. How deeply and keenly must Christ have felt this humiliation. {16MR 183.1}

How do fallen angels look upon this pure and uncontaminated One, the Prince of Life, through the different stages of His humiliation? They look upon the scene, the Son of the living God humiliated to take upon Himself the nature of man and meet the strong man armed with all his weapons of deception and falsehood to overcome Jesus Christ. And every victory gained, how precious it is in behalf of the human family, exalting, elevating, ennobling the workmanship of God; and Satan has been at work for centuries, degrading, debasing, and prostituting all his powers to do his hellish work. {16MR 183.2}

The humanity of Christ received the fallen foe and engaged in battle with him. He was sustained in the conflict by divine power just as man will be sustained by his being a partaker of the divine nature. He gained victory after victory as our Champion, the Captain of our salvation, and the divine approval of God and all the universe of heaven flowed into His soul. His nature was shocked almost unto death, but the heavenly angels ministered unto the suffering One. {16MR 183.3}

All heaven rejoiced because humanity, the workmanship of God, was placed in an elevated scale with God by the signal victory gained. Christ was more than conqueror, leaving the way open that man may be more than conqueror through Christ's merits, because He loved him. The Son of the infinite God is brought into the tenderest sympathies with the tempted church. He knows how to succor those who shall be tempted, because He was Himself tempted.--Ms 57, 1890. (Transcribed from Diary Book No. 14, pp. 272-283; 293-295.)

EDITED: I deleted the first half of this quote in order to focus on the humanity of Christ as it relates to born again believers.

[ August 07, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/07/05 02:11 PM

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: AFTER THEIR FALL, WAS ADAM AND EVE'S EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO SIN AND TEMPTATION EQUAL TO THAT OF THE REST OF HUMANITY OR DIFFERENT FROM IT?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 06:05 AM

I realize I have posted tons of quotes and questions, and hopefully it doesn't derail the topic, but they are definitely pertinent and powerful. Here is another quote where Sister White again compares Jesus and born again believers. By comparing the two it is obvious to me that she believed they are identical in every way, that is, in their humanity. Which is amazing.

quote:
“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.

“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. . . .

“Bear in mind that Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human be-ing. 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 complete-ness 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, 140)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 06:36 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Rosangela:
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: AFTER THEIR FALL, WAS ADAM AND EVE'S EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO SIN AND TEMPTATION EQUAL TO THAT OF THE REST OF HUMANITY OR DIFFERENT FROM IT?

Different. Sinful nature, as it is passed on from generation to generation, accumulates power, like a snow ball rolling downhill, which makes it more and more difficult to recognize and resist unto the honor and glory of God - but not impossible. The power of God is proportionate to the problem. We are, in Christ, more than conquerors.

DA 117
For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation. {DA 117.1}

...

From the time of Adam to that of Christ, self-indulgence had increased the power of the appetites and passions, until they had almost unlimited control. Thus men had become debased and diseased, and of themselves it was impossible for them to overcome. {DA 117.4}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 12:18 AM

RR: Tom,

1) In his article Paulson does not distinguish between natural passions and sinful passions, which is fundamental to a correct understanding of the subject. Natural passions will remain with us our whole life and must be controlled by reason, while sinful passions must definitely be cut away from the character.

Tom: He addressed these concepts using different terms.

2) Old Tom: You are making the assumption that EGW uses these terms completely synonomously, but you have not established this point.

RR: “There [at the wide gate] depraved appetite and natural inclinations find abundant room. There may be seen self-indulgence, pride, envy, evil surmisings, love of money, self-exaltation.” {TMK 304.2}

“Self-indulgence, self-pleasing, pride, and extravagance must be renounced. We cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities.” {RH, May 16, 1893 par. 3}

“The ill-balanced mind, the hasty temper, the fretfulness, envy, or jealousy, bear witness to parental neglect. These evil traits of character bring great unhappiness to their possessors.” {CG 207.1}

“They cherish pride, envy, and hatred, and contention springs from these evil passions.” {BEcho, March 19, 1894 par. 2}

Old Tom:In fact, it is clear that she does not use these terms synonomously because some of these terms she applies to Christ, and some she doesn't.

RR: The terms are synonyms, as shown above,
however passions/propensities/inclinations/traits of character may be good or bad, so any of these terms could be applied to Christ; this doesn’t mean she must have applied all of them. I’ve not made a careful analysis, but it seems that passions/inclinations are applied to both physical and moral aspects of man, while propensities/traits are applied just to the moral aspects.

Tom: We're getting a bit removed from the original point. It seemed to me that you lumped a bunch of quote and statements together which were using different words and phrases in different ways. As you allude to yourself, there are subtle distinctions in the way EGW uses these words and phrases.

RR: 3- Christ was made to be sin for us in terms of imputation.

Tom: You pointed out to say that Christ had something unChristlike was an oxy-moron. I cited 2 Cor. 5:21 to show that such "oxymorons" can nevertheless be the case. God in becoming flesh at all was doing an "oxymoron" thing.

Although Christ was perfectly holy, the flesh He partook of was not. His mind was the mind of Christ, but His flesh was the flesh of sinful man.

RR: There was no intrinsic sin in Christ.

Tom: Intrisic means "belonging to a thing by its very nature;" Since Christ was by His very nature God, who is sinless, your statement is of course true.

RR: Now, it’s difficult to prove that Satan’s passions/propensities/inclinations/traits of character are not sin.

“Envy is one of the most despicable traits of Satanic character.” {ST, August 17, 1888 par. 6}

“Many who claim to be children of God are children of the wicked one, and have all his passions, ... his unlovely traits of character." {SW 13.2}

"Liquor-drinking encourages the vilest debauchery and strengthens the most satanic propensities. {BTS, July 1, 1902 par. 4}

Tom: I don't know what point your trying to make here.

Old Tom:The relevant point is that Christ was in all points tempted as we are, not tempted beyond or in some other way. An earlier quote I provided stated that the difficulties of the Christian are temptations from within, and that Christ understood these difficulties.

RR: I’m not sure if by temptations from within you mean something which is intrinsic to us (in this case temptations which involve the body are temptations from within). If, however, by temptations from within you mean what Ellen White says here, then Christ was not tempted from within:

Tom: I meant what she said in the quote I cited. She said the most difficult temptations Christians have to face are the temtations which are from within. These are the temptations which Christ's understands from His own experience. This is how He is able to comfort us and how He was able to given an example to us.

The following statement from DA is very easy to follow:

quote:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)
Christ accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity, which results were shown in the histroy of Christ's ancestors, which includes every kind of sin and vice.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 12:22 AM

quote:
“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.
This is a good one. It should be clear that if Christ took the nature of unfallen Adam, this would be a "special power" which it is not our privilege to have.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 01:53 AM

Tom,

What is exactly the distinction people want to make by referring to Christ´s pre-fall and post-fall nature? Adam didn´t have any inherited tendencies to evil, either before or after his fall. The difference between Adam´s pre-fall and post-fall nature is just in terms of acquired tendencies to evil.

Mike,

I still have to read the references you gave. I will reply to you tomorrow morning.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 03:10 AM

The distinction is that after Adam sinned the nature of man changed, which changed was passed genetically to Adam's ancestors. This was discussed in the earlier SOP quote. Apart from the grace of God, it is impossible for man to overcome sin. This was not the state of Adam before the fall, but it was the state of Adam after the fall, and it is our state as well. It was also the state of Christ, as far as His humanity is concerned.

Christ could have overcome using His own divine power, but He chose not to do that. As a human being, He could only overcome in the same way we can, which is by faith.

Christ was tempted in all points as we are tempted, which includes doing things which are against the inclinations of our flesh.

The distinctions made between the two natures have to do with how we are tempted, as well as the question as to whether it is possible to overcome sin. If simply having sinful flesh causes one to be a sinner, as many believe, then obviously Christ could not have partaken of our flesh because that would have made Him a sinner. Also we would not be able to overcome sin, as simply be existing we would be in a continual state of sin.
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 07:55 PM

The question came up on another forum as to whether we're born with a carnal mind or not, and here's what I found when researching that:

SOP word searches on the phrases "carnal mind" and "carnally minded" failed to turn up a single instance where EGW wrote that we're born that way. Indeed, we can see definitely that we're not born with a carnal mind, both from the Bible and the SOP:
"...the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7
According to this verse, if a baby is born with a carnal mind, then that baby is at "enmity against God." Hatred against God, in other words. But babies aren't at enmity against God, as we've already seen in previous discussions. Many babies will be taken to heaven at the first resurrection, as EGW saw in vision {2SM 260}. God isn't taking beings to heaven who hate Him, obviously. So it's just not possible that babies would have carnal minds, automatically at birth.

Romans 8:7 also explains why a carnal mind is enmity against God: "for it is not subject to the law of God." But a baby's mind is neither "subject" nor "not subject" to the law of God -- a baby doesn't know the difference either way!

More statements regarding the carnal mind, from the SOP:
"The carnal mind rejects the truth; but the soul that is converted undergoes a marvelous change."
{Youth's Instructor 10-09-02 para. 11}
Babies don't "reject the truth," so they can't be said to have carnal minds. They can't reject something when they have no idea it even exists.
"Those who hate the law of Jehovah reveal that they have carnal minds, which are not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. This is not for want of proof, but because of the stubborn resistance of their unbelieving hearts, -- not because of ignorance, but because they have set their feet in the path of transgression."
{RH 01-26-97 para. 7}
Here we see some of the characteristics of those who have carnal minds:

- They "hate the law of Jehovah." Babies don't even realize that the law of Jehovah exists, so they can't hate it.
- "They have set their feet in the path of transgression." That's a conscious choice they've made. Babies can't do that.
- The carnal mind arises "not because of ignorance." Babies *are* ignorant. So they can't have carnal minds.

Another evidence:
"Heaven would not be desirable to the carnal-minded; their natural, unsanctified hearts would feel no attraction toward that pure and holy place, and if it were possible for them to enter, they would find there nothing congenial."
{AA 273.2}
Since many babies will be taken to heaven, it's impossible that they would have carnal minds, since "heaven would not be desirable to the carnal-minded," and "they would find there nothing congenial."

Yet another way to look at it: Paul wrote that
"...to be carnally minded is death." Romans 8:6
Yet EGW saw babies being taken to heaven at the 2nd Coming. If babies have carnal minds, which Paul said is a condition that engenders *death*, how can babies possibly be taken to heaven at Jesus' coming, in the resurrection of *life*?

The carnal mind is something that is developed, due to choices made. It's not something with which we're born.
"No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must be first gained; the soul must purpose the sinful act before passion can dominate over reason or iniquity triumph over conscience. Temptation, however strong, is never an excuse for sin."
{5T 177.2}
So yes, we're born with disinclinations to obey; but we're not actually "not subject" until we *choose* to be. "The soul must purpose the sinful act." This is something babies can't yet do.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 08:30 PM

John, everything you said about the quotes you posted is true if we understand them in the context of known and wilfull sins. But it is not true if we are talking about sins of ignorance. God will take lots of people to heaven who are guilty of sins of ignorance. But He will not take anyone there if they are guilty of wilfull sin and refuse to repent.

You're right, of course, infants cannot make an intelligent decision to sin wilfully, but they can and do sin unknowingly, and they do it all the time. But, of course, God does not count them, or anyone, guilty of the sins they commit unknowingly. However, Jesus died for the sins we commit unknowingly.

Jesus paid the price for all sins of ignorance, which is how and why God can justify taking people to heaven who are only guilty of committing unknown sins. Sins of ignorance are sins that do not lead unto death.

Romans
4:8 Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

1 John
5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 10:05 PM

Tom,

1- Speaking of faith, Christ’s relationship with God was indeed based on faith, but shouldn’t Adam, before his fall, also overcome by faith in God’s goodness and love?

2- As to grace, Christ’s relationship with God was not based on grace, was it? How could He offer grace to us if He Himself had been in need of grace?

3-
quote:
Christ was tempted in all points as we are tempted, which includes doing things which are against the inclinations of our flesh.
It depends on what you mean by flesh. If by flesh you mean the natural inclinations pertaining to human beings, I agree. If by flesh you mean the carnal nature (carnal mind), then I don’t agree.

Mike,

1- Yes, “natural and acquired” are evidently synonymous with “inherited and cultivated”.

“But the light that was shed upon him from the character of Christ, brought with it the responsibility of yielding up every natural or acquired trait that was not in harmony with the character of Christ. In this Judas did not stand the test.” --ST Dec. 18, 1893.

“Ask him to give you the gentleness of Christ; then you will be true to your duty, true to your position of trust, and true to God, a faithful steward, overcoming natural and acquired tendencies to evil.” {SpTA05 20.1}

2- As to the difference between natural and unnatural propensities, perhaps natural propensities are those propensities pertaining to humanity but not evil in themselves; unnatural propensities would be those same propensities, but perverted. See what EGW says about natural and unnatural appetite:

“In order for us to enjoy the natural appetite, which will preserve health and prolong life, God restricts the appetite. He says, Beware; restrain, deny unnatural appetite.”--T., V. III, p. 63. {HL 75.4}

3- The passage which intrigues me most and which seems to most favor your position is that which says that Christ’s enmity against Satan was in one sense supernatural.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/08/05 11:01 PM

RR: Tom,

1- Speaking of faith, Christ’s relationship with God was indeed based on faith, but shouldn’t Adam, before his fall, also overcome by faith in God’s goodness and love?

Tom: No, Adam did not need to overcome by faith, just and angels and unfallen angels do not need faith to overcome. I'm not aware of any statements from inspiration, at any rate, which speak of unfallen beings exercizing faith. Are you?

RR: 2- As to grace, Christ’s relationship with God was not based on grace, was it? How could He offer grace to us if He Himself had been in need of grace?

Tom: As a human being, Christ was in need of grace. As God, He was full of grace and truth. As a man, He overcame as we must overcome, not by relying on His own divine power.

RR: 3-

Old Tom:Christ was tempted in all points as we are tempted, which includes doing things which are against the inclinations of our flesh.

RR: It depends on what you mean by flesh. If by flesh you mean the natural inclinations pertaining to human beings, I agree. If by flesh you mean the carnal nature (carnal mind), then I don’t agree.

Tom: The flesh refers to that which is inherited. Christ accepted the results of the great law of heredity, which results are seen in His ancestors, which includes every sort of sin and vice (see DA 49).
Posted By: Garywk

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 12:47 AM

quote:
Tom: No, Adam did not need to overcome by faith, just and angels and unfallen angels do not need faith to overcome. I'm not aware of any statements from inspiration, at any rate, which speak of unfallen beings exercizing faith. Are you?
Tom,

I'd like to point out something here that I don't think you've thought out, at least it appears that way from your response to Roseangela that I quoted above.

What is faith?

When is faith needed?

Adam, and the rest of the universe, before the cross had to accept on faith that God was truly who He said He was, and that the devil was lying. We are told in the SOP that even those angels who remained loyal, and the inhabitants of other worlds, didn't really understand the principles involved and depth of the Lucifer's deceptions. He was just too good of a liar. Thus they were left in some state of doubt as to who was telling the truth. However, they remained loyal to God. What is it that causes us to remain faithful to God when we can't really understand what's happening? Isn't it faith in God?

Isn't clinging to his promises and taking Him at His word faith? That's what the entire universe had to do until the cross. Then they saw the truth. Then they knew exactly what was going on. It's at that point that they didn't need faith. Not before.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 01:54 AM

"Faith" can be defined in different ways. It can be conceived of as having to do with grace and mercy, in which case it wasn't necessary until after sin.

Also faith is contrasted in inspiration to "sight", because God cannot reveal Himself to us in a way that we could see Him in His glory, because it would kill us. However, unfallen beings can see Him, so do not need faith in the same sense we do.

From the standpoint of believing in God in the sense of character, certainly there would be similarities involved. I'm not aware of inspiration speaking of unfallen beings having faith in God, but I'm open to hearing about it. I'm not studied this out; I just don't recall having heard or read this.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 03:03 AM

quote:
3- The passage which intrigues me most and which seems to most favor your position is that which says that Christ’s enmity against Satan was in one sense supernatural.

Rosangela, she also uses the word “supernatural” in the context born again believers fighting the good fight of faith. In His humanity Jesus relied on the same supernatural help all of us depend on. “And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God.” (DA 24)

“Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was.” (DA 664) This begs the question - If Jesus' humanity was like a born again believers', what, then, was His humanity like? In what way, if any, was it unlike a born again believer?

quote:
Our condition through sin is unnatural, and the power that restores us must be supernatural, else it has no value. There is but one power that can break the hold of evil from the hearts of men, and that is the power of God on Jesus Christ. Only through the blood of the Crucified One is there cleansing from sin. His grace alone can enable us to resist and subdue the tendencies of our fallen nature. {AG 104.5}

When the soul surrenders itself to Christ, a new power takes possession of the new heart. A change is wrought which man can never accomplish for himself. It is a supernatural work, bringing a supernatural element into human nature. The soul that is yielded to Christ becomes His own fortress, which He holds in a revolted world, and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. A soul thus kept in possession by the heavenly agencies is impregnable to the assaults of Satan. {AG 215.5}

Tom, what is the difference between fallen beings exercising saving faith and unfallen beings exercising non-saving faith? For example, when unfallen beings encounter things they don’t understand they have to trust and believe God until they understand it.
Posted By: Garywk

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 03:49 AM

quote:
Also faith is contrasted in inspiration to "sight", because God cannot reveal Himself to us in a way that we could see Him in His glory, because it would kill us. However, unfallen beings can see Him, so do not need faith in the same sense we do.
That's a very narrow interpretaton of "sight" and faith. It also has nothing to do with my illustration.

I can physically see many people I do not trust, that I have no faith in whatsoever. Faith has everything to do with trust. It basically has nothing to do with the ability to physically see someone or something.

Doubting Thomas is an excellent example of this. Jesus stood right in front of Thomas and he still doubted. He didn't believe his eyes. Thomas didn't believe the words of Christ without physically touching Him.

Read the following quotes and see if faith was not required by all who stood loyal to God despite the temptations of the devil.

quote:
When Christ came to the earth in person, Satan's fiercest warfare was directed against Him. But by causing the Son of God to be crucified. Satan struck a blow at himself. When Christ died on the cross, Satan's death-knell was sounded. His deceptions were narrowly watched by the inhabitants of the unfallen worlds, as he, in disguise, worked in such a way that he thought he could not possibly be detected. But he was left to follow his own course, to condemn himself by his own deeds. And before the cross of Calvary he stood revealed in his true character. When Christ cried out, "It is finished," the unfallen worlds were made secure. For them the battle was fought and the victory won. Henceforth Satan had no place in the affections of the universe. The argument he had brought forward, that self-denial was impossible with God, and therefore unjustly required from His created intelligences, was forever answered. Satan's claims were forever set aside. The heavenly universe was secured in eternal allegiance. {RH, March 12, 1901 par. 8}

It was because of the issues at stake that the inhabitants of the unfallen worlds watched with such intense interest the struggle between the Prince of life and the prince of darkness. Those who had not sinned needed not the application of Christ's blood, but they did need to be made secure from Satan's power. The result of the conflict had a bearing on the future of all the worlds, and every step that Christ took in the path of humiliation was watched by them with the deepest interest. {RH, March 12, 1901 par. 9}

quote:
To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory. {DA 758.2}

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion. {DA 758.3}

If you cannot clearly see the nature of the accusations, or understand the principles at stake, the only way you can continue to be loyal and believe in someone involved in a situation in which a third party is trying to make them look bad is through faith. There is no other way.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 05:19 AM

Gary, I'm not aware of anywhere in inspiration which speaks of unfallen beings exercising faith. However, I'm open to be corrected if you can produce such a statement.

This seems a bit removed from this thread. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on what faith is. That would certainly be a worwhile subject.

Faith as it is generally used in theological terms has to do with conversion. Used in a broader sense, it certainly seems to me that "faith" could be used in the sense you are suggeting.
Posted By: Garywk

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 03:34 PM

quote:
Faith as it is generally used in theological terms has to do with conversion.
Once again this is an answer that leaves much to be desired in terms of honesty of answer. Faith, as biblically defined, has everything to do with living life, and that means trust in God for a Christian. The just shall live by faith. Hebrews 11 also has everything to do with how people lived their lives. Faith having to do only with conversion. Pshaw.... That's your second slippery answer after chastising someone else for slippery answers on the other thread we were participating in.

Anyway, I'm dropping the subject. I just came here for one last try at having honest discussions on an SDA theology forum, and from the two threads I joined it has become clear that honesty and truth are still being sacrificed on the altar of personal theology.

It's funny how people on forums dedicated to other subjects can be/are honest about things. They actually want to learn. It's actually easy to come to a consensus because everyone has the same goal--what is true about the subject. I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air that is after spending years on theology forums.

On theology forums everyone wants to make sure their opinion is the dominant one, whether it's correct or not, and any and all forums of dishonesty are the tools used to accomplish that goal. I can't deal with that in a polite way so I'm gone forever from theology forums in general, and SDA theology forums in particular.

I don't know why I figured things might be different this time around, but I did for some unknown reason. I guess I'm just an incurable idealist, always hoping for the best. I guess I just figured if there is ever going to be a place where the vast majority of its population would be honest people looking for truth it would be an SDA forum. I can't tell you how disillusioning the reality is. Very, very, very few people actually want to consider all the evidence. They just make up their minds what they want to believe and the rest of the evidence be hanged. It doesn't count.

Good luck, Roseangela. You're one of only a handful of people I've met in my life who actually takes all the evidence you can find on the nature of Christ and blends it together as a coherent whole.

The last time I read one of your posts it was on the nature of Christ. You've been "discussing" truth with people for several years now, and the "discussion" is at the exact same place, with the exact same objections, as it was a year or so ago. I really do hope you find someone interested in learning to discuss the subject with, but I've lost all hope of finding many such people on internet theology forums.

You're a total abberration from the norm, Roseangela, a real breath of fresh air. You have my respect and admiration, as much for your ability to still be polite in the face of what you have to deal with, as for your honesty.

Goodbye to you all. I very much hope that truth becomes the goal for all of you. I'm going back to technical forums where learning is the goal, not personal ego. I have nothing to offer on forums where I must learn as much about dishonesty as I learn about the subject under consideration, and nothing could make me sadder. This just shouldn't be on an SDA dominated forum. If we really believed our own SDA theology it would be impossible.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 08:58 PM

Tom: Faith as it is generally used in theological terms has to do with conversion.

Gary: Once again this is an answer that leaves much to be desired in terms of honesty of answer.

Tom: I stated several times that I wasn't aware of any statement in inspiration which speaks of faith in terms of unfallen beings. If you could provide such a statement, I would be happy to consider it. I don't see anything "dishonest" about my response. I was just presenting a point of view. "Dishonest" would be my presenting a view I didn't have, or twisting your words, or something like that.

I was happy to read your comments on the subject as it got me to think about the subject.

I sent you a personal message stating I apprecited your comments, and I do. I would be pleased if you would like to stay.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/09/05 10:57 PM

Gary,

I didn’t even have the opportunity to welcome you and you have already left! I hope you change your mind.

Tom,

1- About faith:

“Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. ... So faith, hope, love abide, these three” (1 Cor. 13: 8, 13).

"The Lord created every tree in Eden, pleasant to the eyes and good for food, and he bade Adam and Eve freely enjoy his bounties. But he made one exception. Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they were not to eat. This tree God reserved as a constant reminder of his ownership of all. Thus he gave them an opportunity to demonstrate their faith and trust in him and their perfect obedience to his requirements.” {AU Gleaner, December 14, 1904}

“While Satan claimed to have received great good by eating of the forbidden tree, he did not let it appear that by transgression he had become an outcast from heaven. Here was falsehood, so concealed under a covering of apparent truth that Eve, infatuated, flattered, beguiled, did not discern the deception. She coveted what God had forbidden; she distrusted His wisdom. She cast away faith, the key of knowledge.” {Ed 24}

“Adam regretted that Eve had left his side, but now the deed was done. He must be separated from her whose society he had loved so well. How could he have it thus? His love for Eve was strong. And in utter discouragement he resolved to share her fate. He reasoned that Eve was a part of himself, and if she must die, he would die with her, for he could not bear the thought of separation from her. He lacked faith in his merciful and benevolent Creator.” {SR 36}

2- About grace. I was thinking about grace as mercy, for only those who sin need grace (mercy). In this sense Jesus never needed grace:

“We should never have learned the meaning of this word ‘grace’ had we not fallen. God loves the sinless angels, who do His service, and are obedient to all His commands; but He does not give them grace. These heavenly beings know naught of grace; they have never needed it; for they have never sinned. Grace is an attribute of God shown to undeserving human beings. We did not seek after it, but it was sent in search of us. God rejoices to bestow this grace upon every one who hungers for it. To every one He presents terms of mercy, not because we are worthy, but because we are so utterly unworthy. Our need is the qualification which gives us the assurance that we shall receive this gift.” {AG 10.2}

But if you think of grace as God’s assistance and blessing, then I think the word could be applied to Jesus.

3-
quote:
Old Tom:Christ was tempted in all points as we are tempted, which includes doing things which are against the inclinations of our flesh.
I agree, in the sense Ellen White is presenting here:

“The human will of Christ would not have led him to the wilderness of temptation, to fast, and to be tempted of the devil. It would not have led him to endure humiliation, scorn, reproach, suffering, and death. His human nature shrank from all these things as decidedly as ours shrinks from them. He endured the contradiction of sinners against himself. The contrast between the life and character of Christ and our life and character is painful to contemplate. What did Christ live to do? It was the will of his heavenly Father. Christ left us an example, that we should follow in his steps. Are we doing it?” {ST, October 29, 1894 par. 9}

Now, I don’t know what “inclinations of our flesh” you have in mind. Could you give some examples?

Mike,

Something that is being discussed here is whether Christ possessed or not inherited tendencies to evil. Something that is never discussed is that our cultivated tendencies to evil are much more powerful than our inherited tendencies, because sin is reinforced by repetition. In fact our greatest difficulty is to break with sinful habits. But Christ did not possess cultivated tendencies to evil. In fact, there is one temptation Christ never had, and that was to "do it just once more" (referring to sin). So, if Christ had to experience everything that we experience in order to show us that victory is possible, there would be no hope for drug addicts, alcoholics and homosexuals (sins based on a repeated behavior). However, the essence of temptation is always the same - to do your will instead of God’s will.

I don’t know if Christ was born born again. What is clear, however, is that Christ’s experience as a human being parallels that of born-again believers, that is, born-again believers have at their disposal the same resources Christ had, and may be overcomers in the same way that He was. He lived and died in order to make this possible.
Besides, His temptations were much stronger than ours. “You have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/10/05 12:36 AM

quote:
Once again this is an answer that leaves much to be desired in terms of honesty of answer.

Pshaw.... That's your second slippery answer after chastising someone else for slippery answers on the other thread we were participating in.

[A]nd from the two threads I joined it has become clear that honesty and truth are still being sacrificed on the altar of personal theology.

I can't tell you how disillusioning the reality is. Very, very, very few people actually want to consider all the evidence.

Gary, your strong condemnations are wholly unfounded. I’m sorry you did not enjoy studying with us. We all need to embrace the following promise:

Revelation
14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/10/05 12:51 AM

quote:
So, if Christ had to experience everything that we experience in order to show us that victory is possible, there would be no hope for drug addicts, alcoholics and homosexuals (sins based on a repeated behavior). However, the essence of temptation is always the same - to do your will instead of God’s will.

Rosangela, I’m not sure we can say with such certainty that Jesus wasn’t tempted in all points we, as human beings, are tempted. All we know for sure is that Jesus was tempted in all points.

It’s true that Jesus never cultivated any of the sinful tendencies He inherited with His fallen human nature, but He was, nonetheless, tempted in all points. Also, I think it is important to bear in mind that Jesus wasn’t tempted like an unbeliever, rather, He was tempted like a born-again believer. The difference is vast.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/10/05 01:31 AM

Rosangela:

1) Thank you for the quotes on faith. I would be interested if you could find any relating to non-humans.

2) I think "mercy" and "grace" are a bit different. Mercy would imply, it seems to me, an offence committed which is not recompensed as it should be. "Grace" to my mind involves the disposition of treating someone better than they deserve; that is, in a gracious way.

3) Having sex with someone who is not your spouse would be an inclination of the flesh. The flesh knows nothing of marriage or any such things. It only knows of desires; it's up to the mind to regulate the flesh.

We feel a tremendous conflict between the urgings of our flesh and what the mind knows to be true. Christ experienced this same conflict, but never gave in to temptation.
Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/10/05 12:09 PM

quote:
Gary, I'm not aware of anywhere in inspiration which speaks of unfallen beings exercising faith. However, I'm open to be corrected if you can produce such a statement.
Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin.

Tom, Gary’s point is very relevant, and is the basis of the issues of this topic. Simply put, if faith is not exercised in heaven, then it would be all sin. Faith is the foundation of the kingdom of God. If faith is seen as something only for this world, then it is not understood at all.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/10/05 09:35 PM

I suppose it depends upon what one considers faith to be. If one considers it to be trust in God based upon an appreciation of His character, then that certainly applies to all of God's children.

I'm not aware that inspiration uses the term for non-humans. Rosangela pointed out some quotes to where it is applied to Adam and Eve before they fell, so perhaps that is sufficient to establish the point. If any one can come across any statements relating faith to angels, I'd be interested in seeing that.

The classic definition of faith is that it is a conviction of things unseen. The context seems to me to be addressing the human condition.

To me this seems a matter of semantics. That is, in terms of the broader issue of the Great Controversy, I'm not aware that you (John B.) or I see things differently. Gary seemed to be on the same page as well.

Since this topic has been taken over by faith, I'll ask a few questions:

1) What is faith?
2) Is the faith referred to after sin arose any different than the faith referred to before?
3) Is the faith that fallen humans need to exercise any different than the faith that angels exercise (assuming angels exercize faith)?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/11/05 03:37 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man [on page 11]:
Tom, what is the difference between fallen beings exercising saving faith and unfallen beings exercising non-saving faith? For example, when unfallen beings encounter things they don’t understand they have to trust and believe God until they understand it.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/11/05 04:55 AM

The way you are suggesting to consider faith, as believing or trusting in God's character (it appears to me this is your thought) seems perfectly reasonable to me.

How faith would be different between us and unfallen beings would be if the experience of sin is involved. That is, for example, if faith has to do with grace and mercy, then we humans have experienced this personally, whereas unfallen beings have just witnessed it. They can still be moved by it, of course, but the experience isn't the same.

If one conceives of faith as a trust in God's goodness, which seems like one possible very reasonable definiton, then there wouldn't necessarily be any difference.

It appears to me that how faith is used in Scripture, especially in the Greek, encompasses more than how we generally use the word in English.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/11/05 07:23 PM

1) What is faith?

Taking God at His word.

2) Is the faith referred to after sin arose any different than the faith referred to before?

No. The fruit of faith is obedience.

3) Is the faith that fallen humans need to exercise any different than the faith that angels exercise (assuming angels exercize faith)?

No. In both cases the fruit of faith is obedience. Our circumstances are totally different, of course, but the fruit of the faith is obedience no matter where or by whom it is exerised.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/11/05 10:41 PM

Is taking God at His word all that faith is? Does faith involve appreciation, for example? Or gratitude? Does it involve an admiration of God's character?

For example, a person could hate God, and still take Him at His word. Would such a person be exercising faith? Would this faith be salvific?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/12/05 12:42 AM

quote:
Romans
10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

1 John
5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith.

Do these passages shed any light on the subject?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/12/05 07:00 AM

Yes they do. How about this one?

quote:
36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. 37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, 38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. 40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. 41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. 45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? 50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.(Luke 7:36-50)
How about the questions I asked? Please answer them.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/12/05 08:08 PM

quote:
And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Faith doesn’t save us, Jesus does. It is faith that enables Jesus to save us. That’s what Jesus meant.

quote:
Is taking God at His word all that faith is? Does faith involve appreciation, for example? Or gratitude? Does it involve an admiration of God's character?

For example, a person could hate God, and still take Him at His word. Would such a person be exercising faith? Would this faith be salvific?

Saving faith is taking God at His word. To appreciate God’s character we must believe what we learn about His character in His word. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/13/05 01:26 AM

Old Tom: And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

MM: Faith doesn’t save us, Jesus does. It is faith that enables Jesus to save us. That’s what Jesus meant.

Tom: The reason I quoted the story was because it was a story which demonstrated what faith is. The woman demonstrated her appreciation of what Christ had done for her by anointing Him with perfume and washing His feet with her tears. Jesus referred to this as "faith". So the faith which Christ referred to as saving her was more than simply taking God at His word, which would be simply believing some fact.

You mentioned that faith enables Jesus to save us. What does this mean? What does Jesus do that saves us? How does faith enable Him to do that?

Old Tom: Is taking God at His word all that faith is? Does faith involve appreciation, for example? Or gratitude? Does it involve an admiration of God's character?

For example, a person could hate God, and still take Him at His word. Would such a person be exercising faith? Would this faith be salvific?

MM: Saving faith is taking God at His word. To appreciate God’s character we must believe what we learn about His character in His word. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Tom: I don't see that your response answered any of my questions. They can be answered "yes" or "no." Feel free to elaborate, but I would still be interested in the yes and no parts. For your convenience, I'll repeat them here:

Is taking God at His word all that faith is? Does faith involve appreciation, for example? Or gratitude? Does it involve an admiration of God's character?

For example, a person could hate God, and still take Him at His word. Would such a person be exercising faith? Would this faith be salvific?
Posted By: John H.

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/13/05 05:41 AM

EGW used this phrase hundreds of times to describe real, saving faith: "Faith that works by love."

[edit] This is also good:

"Where there is not only a belief in God's word, but a submission of the will to Him; where the heart is yielded to Him, the affections fixed upon Him, there is faith."
{SC 63.2}

[ August 13, 2005, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: John H. ]
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/13/05 06:30 AM

quote:
I don't see that your response answered any of my questions.
I'm sorry. I guess I don't know how to answer your question.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/13/05 07:49 AM

quote:
"Where there is not only a belief in God's word, but a submission of the will to Him; where the heart is yielded to Him, the affections fixed upon Him, there is faith."
Yes this is good. It brings out that our affections being fixed upon God is an element of faith. It's not simply taking God at His word. Ellen White often referred to it as "heart work".

She also has a statement where she says we may say we believe in Christ when we recognize the cost of our salvation (believing in Christ is synonomous to saying that we have faith in Christ).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/13/05 08:00 AM

Old Tom:I don't see that your response answered any of my questions.

MM: I'm sorry. I guess I don't know how to answer your question.

Tom: No need to apologize. I see you are having trouble, so I will help you step by step through each question.

Question No. 1: Is taking God at His word all that faith is?

This question can be answered "yes" or "no". A "yes" answer would mean that faith involves nothing more than taking God at His word. It would not involve other elements, such as appreciating God's character, or feeling of gratitude or thankfulness. A "no" answer would mean there is more involved, such as the things I suggested, or other elements that you might suggest.

Question No. 2(a, b, c):Does faith involve appreciation, for example? Or gratitude? Does it involve an admiration of God's character?

These are addional elements to question 1 which I have suggested. I believe that in addition to taking God at His word, these elements are also, in addition, included as essential elements to faith. Do you agree with me on this? You may answer "yes" if you agree, and "no" if you do not.

Question No. 3(a, b):For example, a person could hate God, and still take Him at His word. Would such a person be exercising faith? Would this faith be salvific?

A person could hate God, such as say one of the pharisees. If a pharisee, specifically one of the ones who conspired to put Christ to death, were to take God at His Word, would he be exerciaing faith? This question can be answered "yes" if you think such an act would be an act of faith, or "no" if you think not. You could elabaorate as you saw fit.

If you respond "no", then there's no need to respond to the follow up question as to whether this faith would be salvific, so you would be saying you don't believe the pharisee was exercizing faith. If you respond "yes", that the pharisee is answering faith, then is this faith salivic? By this I mean, would this faith result in the Pharisee's salvation? This question can be answered "yes" or "no".

Ok, you should be set now! Please answer the questions. The reason I'm asking is to try to ascertain more completely what you conceive faith to be.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/13/05 11:47 PM

quote:
I believe that in addition to taking God at His word, these elements are also, in addition, included as essential elements to faith. Do you agree with me on this? You may answer "yes" if you agree, and "no" if you do not.
No. I believe such things are the fruit of faith.

quote:
If a pharisee, specifically one of the ones who conspired to put Christ to death, were to take God at His Word, would he be exerciaing faith?

No. Conspiring to kill Christ is not a fruit of faith. With saving faith it is all or nothing. No man can serve two masters. A tree cannot bear two opposite kinds of fruit.

John
14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

According to this passage, to believe on Jesus is to behave like Jesus. Faith and works are separate but related elements of salvation.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/14/05 08:31 AM

Thank you MM for answering the questions. You wrote that you believe that appreciation and gratitude are fruits of faith. I believe they are essential elements of faith. That is, one cannot have faith without feeling gratitude. My belief is in harmony with both Scripture (see the story about Mary Magdalene and the feast of Simon which I cited) and the Spirit of Prophesy (who wrote that we may say we believe in Jesus when we appreciate the cost of our salvation.

Regariding the Pharisee question, you wrote that if a Pharisee who was plotting to kill Christ were to take God at His word, that would NOT be faith. So what is faith? You wrote before that faith is taking God at His word, but in the case of the Pharisee you say it isn't. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/14/05 05:53 PM

Saving faith and good works are separate but related elements of salvation. The Pharisees you mentioned did not exercise saving faith or manifest good works.

Faith and feelings are also separate but related elements of salvation. Feelings like gratitude and appreciation are some of the fruits of faith, the icing on the cake.

Which comes first - saving faith or good works, saving faith or fine feelings?

HP 123
The children of God may rejoice in all things and at all times. When troubles and difficulties come, believing in the wise providence of God, you may rejoice. You need not wait for a happy flight of feeling, but by faith you may lay hold of the promises and lift up a hymn of thanksgiving to God. {HP 123.2}

NL 38
If we are faithful in doing our part, in cooperating with Him, God will work through us [to do] the good pleasure of His will. But God cannot work through us if we make no effort. If we gain eternal life, we must work, and work earnestly. . . . Let us not be deceived by the oft-repeated assertion, "All you have to do is to believe." Faith and works are two oars which we must use equally if we [would] press our way up the stream against the current of unbelief. "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." The Christian is a man of thought and practice. His faith fixes its roots firmly in Christ. By faith and good works he keeps his spirituality strong and healthy, and his spiritual strength increases as he strives to work the works of God. {NL 38.2}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/14/05 09:34 PM

You seem to be equating appreciation and gratitude with "happy feelings". Did you know that the Spirit of Prophesy says to look at the cross of Christ and not be moved is sin?

Here the Spirit of Prophesy points out what faith entails:

quote:
"You may say you believe in Jesus, when you have an appreciation of the cost of salvation. You may make this claim, when you feel tha Jesus died for you on the cruel cross of Calvary, when you have an intelligent understanding faith that His death makes it possible for you to cease from sin, and to perfect a righteous character through the grace of God bestowed upon you as the purchase of Christ's blood." (RH 1/24/88)
From this we see that faith involves appreciating the cost of salvation, feeling that Jesus died for us, and an intelligent understanding that by His death we may overcome sin. It's interesting that two our of three of these involve the emotions.

Emotions come from the mind. As the mind beholds the beauty of the love of God, of His character revealed in Christ, it is moved. This being moved is an essential part of faith. It is not "happy feeling" but an appreciation of the great love of God revealed at the cross.

Take a look at how EGW explains how we are saved:

[quote]How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. (DA 175, 176).

It is the love of God revealed at the cross which leads one to salvation when that love is perceived and responded to.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/15/05 12:35 AM

quote:
It is the love of God revealed at the cross which leads one to salvation when that love is perceived and responded to.
Amen! Perceived and received - I like it.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/15/05 01:00 AM

Old Tom: It is the love of God revealed at the cross which leads one to salvation when that love is perceived and responded to.

MM: Amen! Perceived and received - I like it.

Tom: Good! So we're in agreement that faith involves apreciating and responding to the love of God revealed at the cross?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/15/05 02:40 AM

You say "involves" and I say "the fruit of" - close enough, eh?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/15/05 03:39 AM

No, because by "involves" I mean that it's an integral part of it. Fruit would mean something which comes as a result of the faith.

I'm saying that faith in and of itself includes appreciation and gratitude. This is something different than good works, which would be the fruit of faith.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/15/05 06:50 AM

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I guess we're not in agreement.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/15/05 07:23 AM

I'm still not clear as to what you think faith is. Is it correct to say that you think that faith is taking God at His word, and nothing more than that? Do you not see in the quote regarding how we are saved that faith has to do with seeing and appreciateing Christ's sacrifice on our behalf?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Born sinning or born sinners? - 08/15/05 05:29 PM

I'll be away from the computer until the 5th of September. Happy studying.
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church