Christ's human nature...

[pnattmbtc]

pnatt, sinful nature and sinful flesh are the same to me.

They're not the same, necessarily, as "sinful nature" means different things, depending upon the context. People use the term differently, and even the same person (e.g. EGW) can use the phrase differently, depending upon the context.

For example, in one place she speaks of Christ's taking "our sinful nature." In another place she talks about how our sinful nature needs to be "changed" "into his (Christ's) similtude." The first instance is synonymous with "sinful flesh," but the second isn't.

[doug yowell]

Here is my understanding as I posted in another thread:

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

One of the reasons you find this hard to believe Gerry, is because you don't believe that Jesus truly took on our sinful nature. But He did. The Bible and the SoP both declare it. So He has already acomplished what this group of people will, with nothing more than the same power that is available to us.

Gerry's answer:

If by "Jesus truly took on our sinful nature" you mean that He was born with an inclination or propensity to commit sin, NO, I definitely do not believe it. Consider what the Bible says about Him.

1. Lk 1:32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."

2. Lk 1:35 “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and was called "HOLY" from conception. NO human being can claim this kind of origin.

3. Second Adam: "....Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Rom 5:14. " Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 1 Cor 15:45.

Which Adam? BEFORE or AFTER THE FALL? From a moral standpoint Christ was the Second Adam BEFORE the fall. BODILY-WISE, He was the second Adam AFTER the fall. Evidence?

1. Look at # 1 & 2 again. He was holy from the moment of conception. Conceived by the power of the HOLY Spirit. It can't be otherwise.

2. "Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, he began where the first Adam began. Willingly he passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam’s failure." {YI, June 2, 1898 par. 1}

3. "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."

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; 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 God 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 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 be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

These words do not refer 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.

Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 1128

In what contrast is the second Adam as He entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan singlehanded! Since the Fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ’s advent to the earth. And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He, who knew no sin, became sin for us. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that He might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him. {1SM 268.2}

White, Ellen Gould: Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 1; Selected Messages, Book 1. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958; 2002, S. 268

THat's what I was going to say but Mark encouraged me not to use EGW quotes.

[pnattmbtc]

There's a BIG difference. When a sinner is reborn, he is still imprisoned in the SAME body every fiber of which craves for unlawful things! Christ did NOT have a body that had an inclination/propensity/craving to sin.

[pnattmbtc]

No red herring.

[pnattmbtc]

If we're going to go by Scripture, Scripture uses the term "sarx," which is "flesh." This is another reason I prefer this term.

Scripture says that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Again, that as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise took part of the same.

So what does this mean? Before we argue about what it is we agree or don't agree with, let's define what specifically we're talking about.

[Gerr]

The Holy Spirit has genes? So Christ was half-prelapsarian (the genes from the Holy Spirit), and half post-lapsarian (the genes from Mary)? And the Holy Spirit genes were "moral" while the Mary genes were "physical"? This is the idea?

Notice that I put a (?) after genes because that is purely speculative on my part. A person ha 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Since Jesus had no biological human father, either He had only 23 chromosomes or 46. If He had 46, then 23 would have had to be supplied by the Holy Spirit, who in fact was the agent of His conception.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Gerry

I don't for one moment believe that EGW understood propensity to mean practised sin; she knew it meant inclination or tendency to sin.

Pnat:

Sure, it means inclination or tendency to sin, but from what source? From DNA, or from practiced sin? Please consider the context.

Originally Posted By: Gerry

John, once you admit that He did NOT have PROPENSITY to sin, then He did not have our sinful nature in its totality.

Pnat:

Here's another example of lack of clarity as to what the subject under discussion is. EGW wrote that Jesus Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature (MM 181). Clearly "our sinful nature" is our sinful nature. What else could "our sinful nature" be? She meant to say, "Christ took our sinful nature (but not in its totality) upon His sinless nature"? That would certainly be reading into what she actually wrote.

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Here is what she said:

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 was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.

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.

pnat:

However, a very legitimate question is what "sinful nature" encompasses. The answer is, it depends upon the context, as she uses the phrase differently, depending upon the context, which is why I prefer the phrase "sinful flesh" in the context of this discussion. I think by "sinful flesh" we have a better idea as to what's being discussed, although it still needs to be clearly defined.

Until we define what specifically is being talked about, the discussion will just go around in circles, with different parties talking about different things, and each party talking past the other.

IMHO, using "sinful flesh" would not solve a thing. Are you then willing to concede that Jesus' flesh was full of sin? If His flesh was full of sin, then He would have had every propensity/inclination to sin as I do.

And notice what she said, that as a result of Adam's failure, we acquire the propensity to sin at conception rather than through practiced sin. If you want to learn more about how this can be done genetically, read about epigenetics. This has given me a better insight as to how acquired lifestyle characteristics may be passed on to posterity.

[Gerr]

Earlier you wrote:

Quote:

BODILY-WISE, He was the second Adam AFTER the fall.

This is contradictory, isn't it? If Christ's body was different than every other post-lapsarian body, then BODILY-WISE, Christ *wasn't* the second Adam AFTER the fall.

Not at all. Here are some quotes:

"The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family." {Con 31.3}

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}

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 117.1}

Putting all the quotes together (including from the other posts), something comes out clear to me. Jesus was very much like us, except:

1. He was conceived by the power of Holy Spirit.

2. Full of the HS from birth.

3. He was not born with any inclination/propensity to sin.

[doug yowell]

If we're going to go by Scripture, Scripture uses the term "sarx," which is "flesh." This is another reason I prefer this term.

Scripture says that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Again, that as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise took part of the same.

So what does this mean? Before we argue about what it is we agree or don't agree with, let's define what specifically we're talking about.

I think this may be a helpful step.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

If we're going to go by Scripture, Scripture uses the term "sarx," which is "flesh." This is another reason I prefer this term.

Scripture says that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Again, that as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise took part of the same.

So what does this mean? Before we argue about what it is we agree or don't agree with, let's define what specifically we're talking about.

I think this may be a helpful step.

I thought I had provided some definitions of what sinful nature is when I quoted Paul. And yes, he seems to equate sinful nature with the "flesh".

1. If you are "of the flesh, sold under sin," you cannot do what you want. You do what sin tells you. Rom 7:14-15.

2. You cannot do what you want because of indwelling sin, 7:17-20

3. The sin principle dwells (oikeo - resides, makes its home) within a person & in his body parts, 7:17,20,23.

4. Left to itself, even without the devils' promptings, this sinful flesh will produce: sexual immorality, impurity, etc. etc. Gal 5:19-21.

It may very well be that as Pnat pointed out, EGW's use of the phrase "sinful nature" may be different in different contexts. I have not studied that. But I don't believe that there's anyone who is willing to ascribe to Christ the kind of sinful nature/flesh as Paul described in the above verses.

Yet Hebrews also tells us that:

1. "He had to be made like his brothers in every respect," Heb 2:17, "flesh & blood," 2:14, in the "likeness of sinful flesh," Rom 8:3.

So can we clarify things by defining our terms? What seems clear to me is that when "sinful nature" is applied to man, it covers the full range of the liabilities that the phrase implies, i.e. morally, physically, psychologically, etc., but when it is applied to Christ, the term has a more limited meaning.

[doug yowell]

I don't for one moment believe that EGW understood propensity to mean practised sin; she knew it meant inclination or tendency to sin.Pnat:

Sure, it means inclination or tendency to sin, but from what source? From DNA, or from practiced sin? Please consider the context.

And notice what she said, that as a result of Adam's failure, we acquire the propensity to sin at conception rather than through practiced sin.

This is a very important distinction,I believe.The question is not what kind of human nature did Jesus practice or develop but rather what was the nature(or flesh)that Jesus was born with?By definition propensity means bent or natural leaning towards.EGW is not asserting,as some do,that propensity should be given a unique and opposite meaning,which applying "practice" to the context of conception would do.

[doug yowell]

So can we clarify things by defining our terms? What seems clear to me is that when "sinful nature" is applied to man, it covers the full range of the liabilities that the phrase implies, i.e. morally, physically, psychologically, etc., but when it is applied to Christ, the term has a more limited meaning.

Limiting only the sinful propensities?

[Gerr]

DY: Limiting only the sinful propensities?

G: That's what it looks to me right now.

[skyblue888]

Has anyone here ever studied A.T. Jones' 1895 General Conference lectures on this topic?

sky

[John317]

... I don't for one moment believe that EGW understood propensity to mean practised sin; she knew it meant inclination or tendency to sin.

Gerry, check out a couple of EGW quotes:

"We need not retain one sinful propensity." SDA BC vol.7, page 943. If propensity here means what we inherit, this statement could not be true, because we will retain our inherited nature until the day of death or translation. But if propensity refers to chosen or cultivated habit patterns, then it is true that we need not retain of of these sinful propensities.

"Self-indulgence, self-pleasing pride, and extravagance must be renounced. WE cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities." RH May 16, 1893. These propensities are clearly chosen patterns of thought. We might even say that a sinful propensity refers to a cultivated tendency. The crucial point is that a sinful propensity is permitted to develop from our inherited bent to evil. Jesus never developed such sinful propensities. See Face to Face With the Real Gospel, pp. 54, 55.

This would lead to the conclusion that while both Jesus and ourselves inherit a "fallen heredity," He didn't develop any sinful propensities. Jesus' perfect obedience was not due to being born with an unfallen nature, contrary to the teachings of Catholicism. Most of the Christian churches, including many SDAs, have accepted the Catholic view. But I believe that is the teaching of Babylon, which, as individual believers and as a church, we need to make sure we avoid.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

... I don't for one moment believe that EGW understood propensity to mean practised sin; she knew it meant inclination or tendency to sin.

Gerry, check out a couple of EGW quotes:

"We need not retain one sinful propensity." SDA BC vol.7, page 943. If propensity here means what we inherit, this statement could not be true, because we will retain our inherited nature until the day of death or translation. But if propensity refers to chosen or cultivated habit patterns, then it is true that we need not retain of of these sinful propensities.

"Self-indulgence, self-pleasing pride, and extravagance must be renounced. WE cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities." RH May 16, 1893. These propensities are clearly chosen patterns of thought. We might even say that a sinful propensity refers to a cultivated tendency. The crucial point is that a sinful propensity is permitted to develop from our inherited bent to evil. Jesus never developed such sinful propensities. See Face to Face With the Real Gospel, pp. 54, 55.

This would lead to the conclusion that while both Jesus and ourselves inherit a "fallen heredity," He didn't develop any sinful propensities. Jesus' perfect obedience was not due to being born with an unfallen nature, contrary to the teachings of Catholicism. Most of the Christian churches, including many SDAs, have accepted the Catholic view. But I believe that is the teaching of Babylon, which, as individual believers and as a church, we need to make sure we avoid.

Alot of suppositions here mixed in with truth. Sorry I still don't know how to isolate individual quotes and address each without starting a new post each time.Being born with no sinful propensities does not guarantee perfect obedience as was witnessed by the first Adam and Lucifer. Being born with no inherent propensities gives one no advantages in a sin filled world.It probably makes it more difficult.Somewhere,EGW addresses our ability to overcome both inherited and cultivated sins.This is an admission that there are propensities that are not cultivated.Propensities that she says Jesus never had.

[John317]

I did read those sermons but it was a long time ago, so I need to restudy them. I do remember that A.T. Jones made a clear distinction between sinful flesh and sinful mind. He said Jesus assumed our sinful flesh but did not assume our sinful mind.

Before I read Jones, I believed that Jesus assumed the nature of Adam before the Fall.

[John317]

...Somewhere,EGW addresses our ability to overcome both inherited and cultivated sins.This is an admission that there are propensities that are not cultivated.Propensities that she says Jesus never had.

But we don't inherit sins, do we?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

... I don't for one moment believe that EGW understood propensity to mean practised sin; she knew it meant inclination or tendency to sin.

Gerry, check out a couple of EGW quotes:

"We need not retain one sinful propensity." SDA BC vol.7, page 943. If propensity here means what we inherit, this statement could not be true, because we will retain our inherited nature until the day of death or translation. But if propensity refers to chosen or cultivated habit patterns, then it is true that we need not retain of of these sinful propensities.

"Self-indulgence, self-pleasing pride, and extravagance must be renounced. WE cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities." RH May 16, 1893. These propensities are clearly chosen patterns of thought. We might even say that a sinful propensity refers to a cultivated tendency. The crucial point is that a sinful propensity is permitted to develop from our inherited bent to evil. Jesus never developed such sinful propensities. See Face to Face With the Real Gospel, pp. 54, 55.

This would lead to the conclusion that while both Jesus and ourselves inherit a "fallen heredity," He didn't develop any sinful propensities. Jesus' perfect obedience was not due to being born with an unfallen nature, contrary to the teachings of Catholicism. Most of the Christian churches, including many SDAs, have accepted the Catholic view. But I believe that is the teaching of Babylon, which, as individual believers and as a church, we need to make sure we avoid.

Your ( quote seems clear that she is using the word "propensity" in the sense of a tendency/inclination as a result of doing something repeatedly, like an addiction. But look at this 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. [color:#3333FF]Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience.

But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."

It seems obvious then that she is using the word in both senses, i.e. 1) inherent 2) cultivated. I don't believe He had an inherited propensity to sin, and since He did not sin even once, He could not have had the cultivated kind either. So when she said He had no propensity to sin, she must have meant both types.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

...Somewhere,EGW addresses our ability to overcome both inherited and cultivated sins.This is an admission that there are propensities that are not cultivated.Propensities that she says Jesus never had.

But we don't inherit sins, do we?

I don't think we inherit the sin of alcoholism or heroin addiction per se, but through epigenetics we may inherit the inclination/propensity to the addiction.

[skyblue888]

Doug, both inherited and cultivated TENDENCIES to sin. D.A.671.

sky

[John317]

Yes, I agree that she sometimes uses "propensity" in both senses.

Then we have this important statement:

"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.

It seems clear to me that she's saying Jesus came with the heredity "like every child of Adam," that is, Jesus had the same heredity of his anscestor DAvid.

"[satan] hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss." DA 49.

Don't these passages indicate that Jesus must have known from personal experience what it is like to want to go wrong and what it is like to feel the temptation to rebel against God?

I think the difference is that Jesus never chose to act upon these inclinations but He must have known what it is like to have the inclination to do wrong.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

... I don't for one moment believe that EGW understood propensity to mean practised sin; she knew it meant inclination or tendency to sin.

Gerry, check out a couple of EGW quotes:

"We need not retain one sinful propensity." SDA BC vol.7, page 943. If propensity here means what we inherit, this statement could not be true, because we will retain our inherited nature until the day of death or translation. But if propensity refers to chosen or cultivated habit patterns, then it is true that we need not retain of of these sinful propensities.

"Self-indulgence, self-pleasing pride, and extravagance must be renounced. WE cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities." RH May 16, 1893. These propensities are clearly chosen patterns of thought. We might even say that a sinful propensity refers to a cultivated tendency. The crucial point is that a sinful propensity is permitted to develop from our inherited bent to evil. Jesus never developed such sinful propensities. See Face to Face With the Real Gospel, pp. 54, 55.

This would lead to the conclusion that while both Jesus and ourselves inherit a "fallen heredity," He didn't develop any sinful propensities. Jesus' perfect obedience was not due to being born with an unfallen nature, contrary to the teachings of Catholicism. Most of the Christian churches, including many SDAs, have accepted the Catholic view. But I believe that is the teaching of Babylon, which, as individual believers and as a church, we need to make sure we avoid.

What we have to remember, is that the flesh can indeed be put to death...

[skyblue888]

I did read those sermons but it was a long time ago, so I need to restudy them. I do remember that A.T. Jones made a clear distinction between sinful flesh and sinful mind. He said Jesus assumed our sinful flesh but did not assume our sinful mind.

Before I read Jones, I believed that Jesus assumed the nature of Adam before the Fall.

That's right John.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

...Somewhere,EGW addresses our ability to overcome both inherited and cultivated sins.This is an admission that there are propensities that are not cultivated.Propensities that she says Jesus never had.

But we don't inherit sins, do we?

Yes we can, the sins can stay to the third and fourth generation unless overcome by the Grace of God.

[John317]

Doug, both inherited and cultivated TENDENCIES to sin. D.A.671.

sky

Yes, and merely having the tendency is not a sin. It's my understanding that God doesn't hold us guilty for having the tendency but for choosing to act upon the tendency to sin.