Colin,

You may want to read a sermon I did and presented one Sabbath in our local church.

Here's the link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=89037&page=1#Post89037

I would be interested in your comment on that sermon as it relates to this topic.

I agree that a proper understanding of Christ's human nature is important. Moreover, I think the "Christ's human nature is just like ours" concept easily leads to the "dry as the hills of Gilboa" message, and militates against the Everlasting Gospel with which we are to enlighten the world. Essentially, it undermines the pillars set forth in the SOP.

However, I find it hard to believe that the pillars all stand or fall based on one's position on a doctrine that inspiration does not list among the pillars. If it was that important, don't you think EGW would have mentioned it?

Just spotted your linked sermon and had a look at it, and it's good.

The problem it shows up, in this thread's discussion, is how we now understand the pillars of our faith, compared to how they are properly understood from the Bible & SOP: what is the gospel's message contained in those pillar truths? Having the topic listed among the beliefs doesn't mean we understand it correctly.

Oops, I feel a sermon coming on here so this may not be brief but it'll be good.

The pillars of our faith constitute an issue of practical Godliness, but there's this "in Him" in both paragraphs quoted below (here) from your citing of the doctrinal statement in your sermon (iow I didn't go and search it out elsewhere on the internet!), and....

"The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection.

It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom."

This Biblical wording, "in Him", is taught by other churches as referring to Christ filling the gap of our character deficiencies in our spiritual record as Christians with his perfect traits, as they simultaneously deal with sanctification and the final judgement - the former is never finished for the latter, so "in Him" by faith we also achieve complete righteousness (we Adventists say "characters") in the judgement.

We allow this meaning in our doctrinal statement, if we don't actually rely on it.

"in Him" also refers to the source of merits which justify us, or rather the location of those merits: Adventism no longer teaches that Christ's merits are recreated in us by the renewal of the mind (Rom 12:2) of justification, since justification by faith is now supposed to be purely a legal declaration by God that "in Christ" we are righteous: no internal change like creating the righteous mind of Christ in us as we submit to the Spirit's Lordship of "Christ in [us] the hope of glory". (You can detect practical issues of the Godhead involved at this point!...)

Rather than the rest of the details, are we getting the picture of an incomplete gospel in which salvation has Christ's merits covering our heavenly record of guilt but not recreating those merits as our justified minds - through faith?

This is the Evangelical gospel, which does not require perfect sanctification, and all required gospel elements - grace, faith, justification (ie. righteousness) and judgement - are "in Christ". That is, Christ's life lived in our place, and recorded for us on our heavenly records, in place of our guilt.

Yes, we officially say that justification is done for us, and sanctification is done in us, but that's not Biblical: unless the renewal of our minds (Rom 12:2) is the basis of character building, and hence regeneration itself is justification by faith, sanctification is impossible for there is no legal or practical basis in our experience for transforming our characters - for lack of a renewed mind. Sanctification uses the renewed mind, it doesn't actually put it there.

In 1976 what I have suggested just now was reported by the Review as the truth, in the consensus statement at Palmdale after the GC discussed with the Australian leadership led by Desmond Ford what righteousness by faith means. The statement said: "Righteousness by faith...is the experience of justification." That mandates sanctification for the gospel since justification experienced is the sanctified life.

Our doctrinal statement allows the exclusion of sanctification from the gospel, with that "in Him" as the reason ("therefore") that we are ready for translation, which is ambiguous wording: it either means we are also justified in the legal sense alone, which is the straight forward Evangelical lack of sanctification (which has been rendered impossible), or it's unclear! - an oxymoron, placed along side the character cleansing of the faith of Jesus in the proper understanding of the sanctuary truth.

Since we now view the investigative judgement as obtaining an acquittal - like the Sunday churches view it, rather than the cleansing of our characters - though we use that language ("Commandments..." keeping), the sanctuary truth of producing Christlike characters because we're justified by faith in our minds is combined with the Evangelical notion of having "in Christ" the missing righteous character traits for the judgement: finished Christlike charater is incompatible with that Evangelical notion.

Rev 19:8 states that the saints develop perfect characters, with "the righteous deeds of the saints" which traits constitute the perfect wedding dress of the Lamb's bride.

That "righteous deeds of the saints" is not "in Him" since its been installed in us by him! Since the judgement fits us for heaven with our own Christlike characters while we're here, and Christ doesn't even seek to acquit us, that emphasis is at best omitted in this doctrinal statement and at worst cancelled by the contradiction of "in Him" in the context of readiness for translation.

BTW: Sanctification is not required by Evangelicals because there's no chance of it working properly (however the Evangelicals present the Christian faith!), since facilitating successful sanctification happens to require the Saviour taking the same humanity as his own which also has to go through the trials of perfecting characters in us saints....Sorry for sounding obvious.

In the context of the sanctuary cleansing and the internalising of imputed and imparted righteousness, the humanity of Christ is the cornerstone. That was its context in the 1888 message, for upholding the sanctuary truth.

One cannot believe that Jesus had to take our "humanity as his own which also has to go through the trials of perfecting characters in us saints" and also believe that all humans, save Christ, have sinned and fall short of God's glory. The fact that I have sinned and Jesus never did is incontrovertible proof that I must do some things that Jesus did not. IOW, I need a Savior, while Christ did not.

I appears from what you say, asygo, that you have missed out 9 tenths of the gospel - especially after quoting a side comment of mine added to a summary of the gospel.

Yes, Jesus is our Saviour and not the other way round. Jesus also did several things that we haven't done, like being a Christian all his life rather than just after "adult" baptism, and learning righteousness from overcoming every temptation, and also not having sinful traits of character to replace with righteous traits - that's our task with him. You already mentioned the obvious difference that we have sinned and Christ has not.

The real issue I think you're upset about is that you think I'm saying the we saints save ourselves by character perfection apart from Jesus. If that is your concern, you should be able to see it is not my position from the rest of my post you responded to. Have you no comment about the point I made on "in Him" and preparation for translation?

So we still have to clarify the connection between the humanity of Christ and the sanctuary's cleansing?

Why, asygo, can we who have sinned not also develop cleansed and perfect characters through Christ's sanctuary atonement ministry? That is after all your assertion. Or do you consider that perfect characters aren't on the menu for the redeemed - just necessary for the Redeemer?

Seems to me if we disregard the idea that we incur guilt and condemnation, even before we are born or commit a sin, by merely inheriting sinful flesh nature, that we could agree Jesus inherited the same sinful flesh nature we inherit. Again, no one is guilty or condemned based on the fact they inherit sinful flesh nature. Having sinful flesh nature is not the origin of our sin and guilt and condemnation.

Sinning is the source of our guilt and condemnation, not ancestry or inheritance. "All have sinned." This is one of the most basic tenets of Christian belief. "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief." Through faith in the shed blood of Jesus, God does not hold our sinning against us. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." From the dawn of consciousness, we naturally, automatically, instinctively sin. Which is precisely why we must be born again.

Jesus existed in heaven before His incarnation, therefore, He was able to make a choice before His birth to be born "born again." Jesus did not enter the world like we do, that is, under the "dominion of sin". Instead, He began life like a born again believer. Unlike us, Jesus started His earthly journey submitted and surrendered to God. Which is right. He did not come to show us what it is like to be lost. Jesus came to show us how to be godly, how to recognize and resist the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh nature. Yes, He was tempted from within and from without in exactly the same way we are.

5BC 1128
He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted [from within and from without], 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. {5BC 1128.6}

The fact Jesus did not sin as an adult is no "mystery", thus, she is obviously referring to the ages of non-accountability. That is, the fact Jesus did not sin before He reached the age of accountability is a mystery to us. God has chosen not to explain it to us. Exactly how and why Jesus did not sin as an infant is something God has not told us. The reason it is a mystery is due to the fact infants automatically sin. Otherwise, it would not be a mystery.

To say the reason why Jesus did not sin as an infant is due to the fact He did not inherit the same sinful flesh nature we inherit attempts to explain an unexplainable mystery. To say the reason He did not sin during infancy is because He was born "that holy thing" also attempts to explain an unexplainable mystery. The thing that makes it a mystery is the fact He was born with the same sinful flesh nature we inherit and yet He did not sin automatically like we do.

Yes, the nature of sin is the correct beginning of the issue of the Incarnation, and everything in your post yesterday is accurate, including the last paragraph.

But, asygo, the experience of justification is righteousness by faith, so what about the meaning of "in Him" for preparation for translation in the sanctuary doctrine's official definition?

This thread is about the truths which gave birth to the Advent Movement, not just the Incarnation. Put "the Word became flesh" next to true righteousness by faith for him and us, and the sanctuary cleansing in heaven becomes an enthralling topic, since...

The pillars of our faith make that cleansing of the sanctuary the necessity of our time, as getting to heaven isn't about getting into the first resurrection anymore: it's about participating in translation/glorification in its one occurrence in history for mankind. The resurrection depends on the Second Coming, which depends on those living being ready for translation. What else does it mean with 'what manner of people ought ye to be' and 'hasten the return of our Lord'?

The 28 Fundamentals may expand our philosophical expression of faith as far as we find by experience and insight, but the pillars focus our experience of justification (that's RBF, don't you know), do they not?

Colin