Arnold are you saying that we need to have gained victory over all sins before Jesus can come?

Do you think that the great multitude describe in Revelation at the end time will have time to have gained victory over all sins? I believe some of those people will hear the gospel for the first time.

If you think this way, then I think you mis-understood the gospel message and need to re-read Rom 5-8 and Galatian. However, my impression is that you don't and there must be a link that I didn't get in the statement above.

Again, this quote must be read in the light of others. Another quote says:

“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).

Of course it can't be said that the genetic process which gave origin to Christ's human nature was in every particular like ours, since He didn't have a human father. The Bible says He partook of our flesh and blood, not that He was born with our spiritual deformity.


Two things. First, a sinful suggestion is different from a sinful desire. Second, if you desire something evil, the desire itself is evil.

1 Cor. 10:6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.


When you acceed to the temptation, this is no longer a desire, but a decision. The desire precedes the decision, but the sin may begin in it.
The desire may or may not be wrong in itself. Take as an example the first temptation of Christ. Every temptation must have an appeal, so it is based on a need (legitimate or not). Christ may have thought, "I would like to eat," or "I need to eat," however He concluded, "but not at that cost." Now take Eve's case. She didn't need to eat the fruit; but the devil created a need in her which was not legitimate, and so there was something wrong in the desire itself.

Why do you think this makes Him different? I'm not arguing that He wasn't different; of course He was, as He was God. Only of Him can it be said, "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature." The rest of us don't have a sinless nature upon which to put a sinful one; we just have a sinful one.

But why do you think that the fact that the other half of His genetics comes from God makes Him different? Especially in the face of the assertion that "like every child of God, He accepted the workings of the great law of heredity"?



Assuming Christ took our sinful nature, why would you think Jesus was rebellious? He was *tempted* in all points as we are. But He never yielded to temptation. So why should He be rebellious?

He said He came not to do His own will, *but* the will of His Father. Why was there any difference, if not for our fallen nature which He assumed? Because of that fallen nature, Christ was *tempted* to rebel, but He never did rebel. He always denied Himself. As Paul put it, he "pleased not Himself."

Regarding your response, Rosangela, is it your argument that Ellen White had a concept of original sin? (or something similar) And "taint of sin" was similar to the Catholic concept of a taint being passed from parent to child? If so, then we have the problem of Mary passing her taint. Is this the idea?

It seems that Ellen White's statement "like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity," which would preclude the idea that God was doing something special for Christ to exempt Him of such a supposed taint.

Here's a couple of other statements regarding "taint of sin"





Rather than somehow mitigating DA 49, her assertion regarding Christ's being born without a taint of sin looks not to have anything to do with the human nature He took.

In addition to considering other EGW texts, a good practice would be to consider how she was understood by her contemporaries, as well as that the church as a whole believed. For example, in meeting the Holy Flesh ideas, they rejected the argument that Christ didn't take our sinful nature, and met the ideas in this way. Donnel's ideas look to be like yours:



So the theory was that these tendencies to sin had to be removed, which is the same thing I hear you saying. To meet this, Haskell read the following:



Again, Haskell said:



which seems like the same debate we're having here.

If your ideas were correct, then Donnel would be correct, and Haskell in error. Ellen White said there was not a thread of truth in the whole fabric. It seems like, on the contrary (assuming what you're suggesting were correct), there would be quite a lot of truth in the fabric, which would just need to be tweaked a bit.




Does this mean yes? Merely having a temptation is a sin? (not including temptations of suggestion).

If this is what you think, it's easy to see why you would think that Christ could not have taken our nature.

Do you believe that Christ was tempted sexually? Did He ever feel the desire to have sex?



It looks like you are equating temptation with desire, and desire with sin, so that temptation is sin. Is this correct?

To clarify, one type of temptation is of the type of suggestion, such as Satan tried with Christ. You don't believe having a temptation like this is sin. However, other temptations, which are not suggestions, you do view as sin. This is what I'm hearing you say. Am I misunderstanding you?

Elle, here's a famous EGW statement:



I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Also your thoughts on the 144,000 in general. You don't believe they'll be totally victorious over sin?

So as to not give the wrong idea, while I believe the 144,000 will overcome, I don't believe the focus of our message should be that, but should rather be on God's love and character. I'll comment more later.

I don't believe the 144,000 will overcome. I believe Christ in them will overcome for them. I believe they will be sealed which is the mystery of God as written in Rev 10:7.

I believe that we are justified by the righteousness of Jesus. Rm 5
I believe it's a free gift and Jesus already lived the perfect life for me.
He already conquered Satan for me.
The only thing He ask me, is to remain in His grace and to trust Him.

Anything short of that, we fall in the RCC's teachings that we need to work or pay for our salvation and we loose sight of the gospel.

I agree God's love and character should be our focuss. In studying in regards to Christ nature, we should be seeing His love and character.

However, it seems that it is human's nature to have merite in his salvation. It seems this debate is revolving around if someone can prove that Christ was 100% like us physically, and in inheritence of all our degenerative evil propensities, then the obvious conclusion is that we have no excuse and can be victorious and conquer all sins. The direction it's going, it confuses and weakens the gospel message by putting the weight of our salvation on our back.

We're loosing the gospel Luther embrased, "the just shall live by faith ALONE" and what Paul understood "by the righteousness of ONE [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life."

I want to be victorious in Christ, not in my works.

I'm interested in your thoughts on COL 69, that when Christ's character is perfectly reproduced in his people, then He will come.

Also, when it says that they overcame by the blood of the lamb, you understand this to mean that Jesus Christ overcame for them? Is this correct?

Do you see any difference in the 144,000 and other believers in Christ from previous generations? (other than the time they live)

Thanks for answering my questions.

Tom, what is col 69? Christ Object Lessons p.69? Can you bring the quote here.

I re-read my post above and I sound quite assertive. You know, yesterday was the first time in over 20 years of Adventism, that I had the assurance of salvation. Can you believe that. Well, that's the truth. The break through came from listening to the sermons of Pastor Bill Liversidge regarding "Victory in Jesus".

Before yesterday, I knew I was in the works and knew that I was missing something in the understanding of the gospel. I didn't know what, but finally Bill Liversidge brought it in front of me by studying Rom 5 to 8. I still have to digest it, and it was just an overview of the gospel but that truth set me free from the bondage of the law.

Today, I'm a bit busy, but I'll work on a respond and share with you how I think it relates to the 144,000 and others.

Tom, the catholic doctrine of original sin is the guilt of Adam’s sin transmitted to us. We have discussed this previously many times, and you know very well that it’s not this that I hold. What I say is that we are born with defective traits of character, which means a defective character unlike the character of God; that we are born loving ourselves supremely instead of loving God supremely; that we are born with a carnal mind not subject to the law of God; that we are born with the propensity to disobey God. Your view doesn’t seem to consider this to be a taint of sin and, therefore, I disagree with it.


You are clearly mistaken. The quote cited in my last post:

“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).

Here it’s clearly said that the humanity Christ took - not His divinity nor the humanity He developed - was without the taint of sin.

Another quote to confirm it:

He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but He did not take the taint of sin. {20MR 324.1}


If one of the premises is wrong and, therefore, the conclusion is wrong, what is left? Their premise was that the sinful nature (flesh) consists just of sinful tendencies. Therefore, they concluded, if the sinful tendencies are removed we will have holy flesh. Of course this is completely wrong, because holy flesh also means natural enmity against Satan and a will naturally in harmony with the will of God. Our will is weak to resist evil, and we must have the enmity against Satan continually implanted in us by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it’s impossible for us to achieve holy flesh here, and the whole movement, with its false ideal, was completely wrong.


Yes, a temptation which proceeds from “the evil of our own hearts,” generating sinful desires, is a sin.


Why do you ask this specifically? Do you consider sex in itself to be a sinful tendency? It’s not a sinful tendency but a physical passion and, under the control of reason, it’s a blessing. The problem is that human beings have many sinful tendencies, both inherited (if the parents abused this gift) and cultivated, revolving around sex.

Amen, Elle! God bless you.