Christ's human nature...

[Twilight]

We need to be able to show this from the bible...

If we defended our position to other Christians from the SOP they would use this as an opportunity to label us as a "cult".

So can each of you show your views from scripture alone?

Or are you relying on inspired commentary without looking at the inspired source?

Just challenging you all...

[pnattmbtc]

IMHO, using "sinful flesh" would not solve a thing.

[pnattmbtc]

pnat:Earlier you wrote:

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.

Gerry:not at all...

(summary)

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.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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

sky

I have.

[pnattmbtc]

Being born with no inherent propensities gives one no advantages in a sin filled world.It probably makes it more difficult.

Why would this make sense? I don't know what you mean by "inherent propensities," but whatever you mean by it, I can't imagine that not having them would make things harder.

[pnattmbtc]

"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."

[Gerr]

Now, how can I misquote something that I directly copied and pasted?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

pnat:Earlier you wrote:

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.

Gerry:not at all...

(summary)

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.

This doesn't address the contradiction. In one place you said that Christ, BODILY-WISE, was the second Adam AFTER the fall. In another place you wrote:

Quote:

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.

So, on the one hand, Christ had a body like Adam AFTER the fall, but on the other Christ did NOT have a body that was like that of an another person born AFTER the fall.

It can't be both ways Gerry!

Then He can't be both human AND divine, could He? Morally speaking, Christ was the pre-fall Adam. Physically speaking, He was the post-fall Adam AND more.

[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.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

But we don't inherit sins, do we?

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

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.

Yes, I agree. But that is different from saying we inherit sins or sin.

I believe that Jesus inherited the inclinations of his mother Mary. But he never acted on those inclinations and therefore He Himself never sinned. From my persepective, the inclination is not sin and does not make us guilty of sin, but it's the choosing to act on the inclination that is sinful.

For instance, I may have the inclination or propensity to be an alcoholic, but as long as I don't act upon that inclination, I'm not commiting a sin.

[Gerr]

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

[color:blue]

Where does the Bible say that we can put the flesh to death without actually dying? What I find is this:

ESV | Ro 6:11 "So you also must consider [logizomai reckon (KJV)] yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." "Consider", "reckon" is the same word used when God reckons/consider the repentant sinner "righteous."

ESV | Ro 8:13 "For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

This sinful flesh/body is shed only at: 1) death 2) glorification.

[Gerr]

I believe that Jesus inherited the inclinations of his mother Mary.

How then can you reconcile the foregoing statement with this quote:

"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.'

[pnattmbtc]

Now, how can I misquote something that I directly copied and pasted?

It may be that the source you copied and pasted from cited the quote incorrectly. I supplied the correct quote. You can verify that for yourself, as I provided the reference.

[pnattmbtc]

Then He can't be both human AND divine, could He? Morally speaking, Christ was the pre-fall Adam. Physically speaking, He was the post-fall Adam AND more.

No, Gerry, this doesn't follow. This isn't even a good example of the contradiction you made. Here's a good example:

1.2+2 equals 4.

2.2+2 does not equal 4.

Here's another one.

1.Obama is the president of the U.S.

2.Obama is not the president of the U.S.

What you said was:

1.Christ had the body of A&E after the fall.

2.Christ did not have the body of A&E after the fall.

Which is it? (Please answer this question) It can't be both.

To say that then God can't be both human and divine makes no sense in this context, and I can only wonder why you would think it would.

[pnattmbtc]

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.

But not Christ, according your beliefs, correct? That is, I'm wanting to clarify what it is you disagree with. I understand your position to be that Christ's heredity was different than ours in that we may, through epigenetics, inherit the inclination to an addiction, but Christ did not inherit such inclinations. That is, Christ's human inheritance was unique in that it was exempt from any inclinations that come through epigenetics to anything negative.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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

[color:blue]

Where does the Bible say that we can put the flesh to death without actually dying? What I find is this:

ESV | Ro 6:11 "So you also must consider [logizomai reckon (KJV)] yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." "Consider", "reckon" is the same word used when God reckons/consider the repentant sinner "righteous."

ESV | Ro 8:13 "For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

This sinful flesh/body is shed only at: 1) death 2) glorification.

It is here Gerry:

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Then He can't be both human AND divine, could He? Morally speaking, Christ was the pre-fall Adam. Physically speaking, He was the post-fall Adam AND more.

No, Gerry, this doesn't follow. This isn't even a good example of the contradiction you made. Here's a good example:

1.2+2 equals 4.

2.2+2 does not equal 4.

Here's another one.

1.Obama is the president of the U.S.

2.Obama is not the president of the U.S.

What you said was:

1.Christ had the body of A&E after the fall.

2.Christ did not have the body of A&E after the fall.

Which is it? (Please answer this question) It can't be both.

To say that then God can't be both human and divine makes no sense in this context, and I can only wonder why you would think it would.

Well, I can see where the misunderstanding is. I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING ABOVE. Here is what I said from post #408564:

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.

I NEVER said He had the BODY of Adam before the fall and then contradict myself by saying He had the BODY of Adam AFTER the fall!!! I know I'm not that smart, but not so obtuse as to make a statement 2+2 = 4, and then turn right around and say 2+2 is NOT = 4!

Conceived of the HS, He CANNOT have EXACTLY the same kind of body or at least mind as the fallen children of A & E Very much like us yet NOT quite like us.

[Gerr]

It is here Gerry:

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

That is obviously metaphorical, or else you'd be hanging on a tree. That's why Paul said, "Reckon/consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God." The same metaphor is seen in Rom 6 where the believer is baptized into Christ's death. The body you have now is the same one you had before conversion or baptism.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: John317

I believe that Jesus inherited the inclinations of his mother Mary.

How then can you reconcile the foregoing statement with this quote:

"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.'

Christ had a sinless human nature like Adam (no moral depravity).

Thus while Romans 3 describes our sinful nature perfectly - it does not describe the human nature of Christ in terms of moral corruption.

Calvinists call this Romans 3 description of our sinful nature - "moral depravity". To that extent they are correct.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

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.

But not Christ, according your beliefs, correct? ....

Correct. His body was the product of heredity 4k yrs removed from the tree of life, minus the inherited moral depravity.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

"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."

This was misquoted. Here's the actual quote:

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. {13MR 18.1}

The underlined portion was omitted.

I don't know if you have noticed, but when you do a search for a quote on the disc, you may be given several references to the same quote which may not be worded exactly the same.

I don't see the MR quote contradicting the SDABC source that I quoted.

[Gerr]

Indeed, Rom 3:11ff is an excellent description of human depravity, just like the man of Rom 7.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Doug

Being born with no inherent propensities gives one no advantages in a sin filled world.It probably makes it more difficult.

Why would this make sense? I don't know what you mean by "inherent propensities," but whatever you mean by it, I can't imagine that not having them would make things harder.

Sorry,pnatt,I guess I left out the "towards sin" part of my post.Imagine yourself(like myself)having an intense dislike for onions and being required to eat them or starve to death. Kinda simple,I know, but ask yourself if it was more difficult for Christ to resist the sinful urges within Himself, or to willingly subject Himself to that which was antagonistic to His nature,finally becoming completely sin filled.

[skyblue888]

"Concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Rom.1:3.

What kind of flesh did David have if not sinful? Thus it is made clear that Jesus lived a sinless life in sinful flesh.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

It is here Gerry:

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

That is obviously metaphorical, or else you'd be hanging on a tree. That's why Paul said, "Reckon/consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God." The same metaphor is seen in Rom 6 where the believer is baptized into Christ's death. The body you have now is the same one you had before conversion or baptism.

Do you think "flesh" here means "body"?

Notice it says "flesh with the affections and lusts", it is quite specific about what has been crucified. :-)

[Twilight]

Remember folks, we should be able to show every point of our beliefs from the scripture.

If we cannot, something in our beliefs must be wrong, or we have not really established them in scripture.

So far, no one has made a "solid" biblical case for their view.

Now if I was coming here to learn about this and wanted you all to show me your view, with scripture, how do you think I would be reading this thread so far?

Do you think I might be confused as to what each of you believes? :-)