Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,639
Members1,323
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108978
02/25/09 09:11 PM
02/25/09 09:11 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
H:This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness.(RH 10/2/00)
A:Was Haskell talking about only His physical nature, or was he including Christ's mind/spiritual/moral nature? He was talking about that which is passed genetically. A:Going back to the quote he was commenting upon:
EGW:He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome.(DA 311, 312)
A:In this statement, when EGW said "nature" was she talking about only flesh? You mean as opposed to saying that Christ took our spiritual and moral nature and overcame with that? For example, Christ was selfish? And overcame that? That doesn't seem like a viable interpretation.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108979
02/25/09 09:14 PM
02/25/09 09:14 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
A:So you are saying that if I commit a sin, I am genetically altered such that chromosomes I pass on to my posterity will have an inclination to that same sin?
T:No, I didn't say this. I said you have inherited inclinations which tempt you to sin.
A:So you're saying that we inherit inclinations which tempt us to sin, but NOT inclinations to sin? Is that right? No, I didn't say this. I said you have inherited inclinations which tempt you to sin. You didn't add any information, but just repeated a known statement. So I'm still not sure what it is you're trying to clarify. I do not see the distinction between inheriting "inclinations to sin" and "inclinations which tempt you to sin." That seems to be what you're clarifying from my statement. Further, are these inclinations, whichever incarnation of the inclinations you prefer, passed on through the genes/chromosomes? If so, that would mean that my sin causes a physical mutation in my cells such that I can pass it on to my progeny. Anything short of that would be a non-genetic mode of inheritance.
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108980
02/25/09 09:16 PM
02/25/09 09:16 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
T:As far as Christ's humanity is concerned, genetically it was like ours.
R:Is a spiritual nature transmitted "genetically" or not?
T: I don't know what this means. Inclinations are passed genetically (which aren't due to non-genetic prenatal influences).
R:Christ was born without a taint of sin in His spiritual nature. I understood you to be saying that we aren't born without a taint of sin in our spiritual nature, that is, that we are unlike Him in this respect. Then, what you appear to be saying is that our spiritual nature is not transmitted genetically. Is this correct? No, I wasn't commenting on this. I was commenting on the fact that Ellen White said that Christ was born without a taint of sin. I said that might be due to the fact that she didn't agree with the Catholic doctrine of original sin in general. That is, Catholics teach that a taint of sin is passed from parent to child, and baptism is necessary to remove this. As Adventists, we don't have a concept like this (or, at least during her time the concept that a taint of sin was passed genetically from parent to child didn't exist). Another possibility is that she is referring to Christ's own sinless nature. Upon reflection, it seems to me this is likely what she had in mind. For example, she says that Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature. This seems like a similar thought. Of course, we don't have our own sinless nature to take our sinful nature upon, so Christ is different than we are in this respect. The sinful nature He took is the same, but the sinless nature He had we don't have inherently, so that's different.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108982
02/25/09 09:21 PM
02/25/09 09:21 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
H:This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness.(RH 10/2/00)
A:Was Haskell talking about only His physical nature, or was he including Christ's mind/spiritual/moral nature? He was talking about that which is passed genetically. A:Going back to the quote he was commenting upon:
EGW:He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome.(DA 311, 312)
A:In this statement, when EGW said "nature" was she talking about only flesh? You mean as opposed to saying that Christ took our spiritual and moral nature and overcame with that? For example, Christ was selfish? And overcame that? That doesn't seem like a viable interpretation. Those are non-answers. You seem to be saying Yes, but not quite ready to commit fully to it. Are you saying Yes to both questions? Re: the DA quote, we are talking about Christ's nature. Look at that quote again and see what it says about Christ's nature. Are we talking flesh here, as you postulate that the SOP means whenever EGW used "nature" regarding Christ? By extension, should we then take Haskell's quote as a statement on Christ's flesh?
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108983
02/25/09 09:23 PM
02/25/09 09:23 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
You didn't add any information, but just repeated a known statement. So I'm still not sure what it is you're trying to clarify. I restated what I said. It seems very clear to me. You're asking me if I was saying things about things I wasn't commenting on, so I explained that I wasn't commenting on those things. I do not see the distinction between inheriting "inclinations to sin" and "inclinations which tempt you to sin." That seems to be what you're clarifying from my statement. You brought up this distinction. I made no comment on this. I simply said that Christ received inherited inclinations like the rest of us, inclinations which tempt us, and Him, to sin. Further, are these inclinations, whichever incarnation of the inclinations you prefer, passed on through the genes/chromosomes? Yes. If so, that would mean that my sin causes a physical mutation in my cells such that I can pass it on to my progeny. Why? Anything short of that would be a non-genetic mode of inheritance. Why? Regarding inheritance, it involves both genetic and non-genetic factors. The genetic factors were the same, as is made clear by such statements as, "like every child of God, He accepted the workings of the great law of heredity." The results of this is shown in Christ's ancestors. I asked you about two points, one being Haskell's explanation that the DA quote he was reading was "fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations, which you commented on. The other point is that evil propensities are not hereditary inclinations. You agreed with this point, but I don't know why. Please explain why.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108984
02/25/09 09:27 PM
02/25/09 09:27 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
Another possibility is that she is referring to Christ's own sinless nature. Upon reflection, it seems to me this is likely what she had in mind. For example, she says that Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature. This seems like a similar thought. Of course, we don't have our own sinless nature to take our sinful nature upon, so Christ is different than we are in this respect. The sinful nature He took is the same, but the sinless nature He had we don't have inherently, so that's different. That seems more likely to me as well. And don't forget that EGW said Christ's "finite nature was pure and spotless." So it's not just His divinity.
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108985
02/25/09 09:28 PM
02/25/09 09:28 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Those are non-answers. You seem to be saying Yes, but not quite ready to commit fully to it. Are you saying Yes to both questions? They're not non-answers. I'm trying to clarity what you're asking. I don't see why there would be any confusion with what Haskell said. It seems to me that "this is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations" is an easily understandable statement. The inclinations receive genetically are those which Christ received. Re: the DA quote, we are talking about Christ's nature. Look at that quote again and see what it says about Christ's nature. Are we talking flesh here, as you postulate that the SOP means whenever EGW used "nature" regarding Christ? By extension, should we then take Haskell's quote as a statement on Christ's flesh? I explained that the idea that she was referring to Christ's spiritual nature did not look to be a viable interpretation and explain why. I asked you if you thought it was a viable interpretation. Probably what I should have done before commenting was to ask you what you meant, so I'll ask now. What do you mean by Christ's taking our moral nature, or His taking our spiritual nature? From my perspective, this doesn't make any sense to me, but I don't know what you mean by it.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: Tom]
#108986
02/25/09 09:33 PM
02/25/09 09:33 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
And this is what we non-postlapsarians teach. Fully in harmony with the Baker Letter, we say that Jesus never had any evil propensities.
So what's the beef against the Baker Letter? Why don't you guys like it? This was discussed previously. People try to use it to teach things like Christ took a sinless human nature. Let's consider this aspect. Jesus had no evil propensities. It seems we're all agreed on that (at least the current participants). Did Adam have evil propensities BEFORE he fell? Did Adam have evil propensities AFTER he fell? My answers have always been No and Yes to these two questions. And when comparing Jesus in this respect, He was like Adam before he fell. So, if we're talking "human nature" in a sense that includes our propensities - IOW, our moral faculties - Jesus was like the pre-lapse Adam. Doesn't this make sense? And this is in full harmony with the plain reading of the Baker Letter.
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?
[Re: asygo]
#108987
02/25/09 09:53 PM
02/25/09 09:53 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
All influences, propensities, inclinations, tendencies that tempt us to sin are evil and sinful. Nevertheless, having them dwelling within us, "that is, in our flesh", does not corrupt or contaminate us while we are abiding in Jesus. So too, Jesus was not corrupted or contaminated by having them dwelling within His sinful flesh. Does desiring and lusting to sin contaminate us if we don't do it? No one is corrupted or contaminated simply because their fallen flesh tempts them from within to cherish or act out the unholy thoughts and feelings (i.e. lusts and desires) it generates and communicates to their conscious mind. Such thoughts and feelings originate with sinful flesh - not with them. So long as they do not own them (i.e. cherish or out out in thought, word, or deed) they are not guilty of sinning. God distinguishes between 1) the unholy thoughts and feelings they are tempted to cherish and act out, and 2) the ones they own and actually cherish or act out. These same dynamics played out in the mind and flesh Jesus possessed while He was here. Do you agree?
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|