Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 25, 2011 Wow-- I feel like I'm back working at Patton. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 almost 4 AM.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 See you tomorrow! Happy Sabbath! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share Posted June 26, 2011 I thought that I would move our conversation about the gospel here. So here's where we left off: Originally Posted By: miz3 Does that put us in agreement again? Yes... So we are in agreement that the "body of sin" is our life indwelt with sin. Good. Now let's go back and look at the points we agreed on: I asked, "did your life die in Him?" On post #456252 you responded, "Yes, Sonny!" Later I asked, "So you got your life after the fall, right? The proof is because you and I have sinful natures, right?" On post #456270 you said, "So far I agree!" Okay to summarize our agreements let's hit the high points one more time: 1] We agree that the "body of sin" is our life indwelt with sin (i.e., the sin nature). 2] We agree that your life died in Christ [on the cross]. 3] We agree that your life, even after becoming a Christian, contains a sinful nature. If you agree with this summary we can go to the final conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Sonny, The phrase by itself is OK as long as we realize that this happened at the Cross! We are actually using her words out of context though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share Posted June 26, 2011 Sonny, The phrase by itself is OK as long as we realize that this happened at the Cross! Yes, as Paul states, "You died to the law in the body of Christ". This death happened at the cross. You've already stated that our humanity was in Him when He died, but here's the thing - when did our humanity get into Christ? But that's secondary right now, the fact is "YOU DIED...IN THE BODY OF CHRIST". Now, you've already agreed that you have a sinful nature and you've already admitted that you died in Christ. That means that you were in the body of Christ and hence that body had a sin nature in it. Do you follow the reasoning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Yes, as Paul states, "You died to the law in the body of Christ". This death happened at the cross. You've already stated that our humanity was in Him when He died, but here's the thing - when did our humanity get into Christ? But that's secondary right now, the fact is "YOU DIED...IN THE BODY OF CHRIST". Now, you've already agreed that you have a sinful nature and you've already admitted that you died in Christ. That means that you were in the body of Christ and hence that body had a sin nature in it. Do you follow the reasoning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share Posted June 26, 2011 Not our humanity but our sin pollution (sinful nature) was placed on Christ.... No, you said that YOU DIED IN CHRIST (not on Christ). Paul doesn't say that "You died to the law on the body of Christ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Fine Sonny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Fine Sonny! So we are in agreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Yes! up to this point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Yes! up to this point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musicman1228 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Please give me a verse or two from the words of Jesus where He said that He took the sinful nature of mankind onto Himself, and that this was necessary for our salvation. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 So Ellen White is correct. Christ, as the Son of God, took upon His sinless nature OUR sinful nature. ONLY ON THE CROSS! ONLY ON THE CROSS! ONLY ON THE CROSS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 NOT AT THE INCARNATION! NOT AT THE INCARNATION! NOT AT THE INCARNATION! NOT DURING JESUS LIFE UP TO THE CROSS! NOT DURING JESUS LIFE UP TO THE CROSS! NOT DURING JESUS LIFE UP TO THE CROSS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Sonny, Ellen White is NOT CORRECT! Ellen White believed that Jesus Christ took on the "sinful nature" of humanity at the Incarnation. THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted June 27, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 27, 2011 The view that Christ took our "sinful nature" does not depend on Ellen White. There are many Christian scholars who believe the same thing and base their view on the Bible alone. One of those scholars was Karl Barth, and another is Harry Johnson, in his book, The Humanity of the Savior (London: The Epworth Press, 1962). Johnson writes, "The New Testament supports the theory that Jesus was born into humanity and took the full human nature of Mary, and the obvious deduction is that part of this heredity was 'fallen human nature.' There is no evidence that the chain of heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus....The birth of Jesus means that He entered fully into our human situation, and that He came into human nature as it was because of the Fall." Ibid., pages 44, 45. Neither Barth nor Johnson read Ellen White's writings. But they were great students of the Bible. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted June 27, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 27, 2011 Ellen White believed that Jesus Christ took on the "sinful nature" of humanity at the Incarnation. THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL! This is a mere statement of an opinion, not evidence of the truth. Prove your conclusion from the Bible evidence and show your reasoning. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 The view that Christ took our "sinful nature" does not depend on Ellen White. There are many Christian scholars who believe the same thing and base their view on the Bible alone. One of those scholars was Karl Barth, and another is Harry Johnson, in his book, The Humanity of the Savior (London: The Epworth Press, 1962). Johnson writes, "The New Testament supports the theory that Jesus was born into humanity and took the full human nature of Mary, and the obvious deduction is that part of this heredity was 'fallen human nature.' There is no evidence that the chain of heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus....The birth of Jesus means that He entered fully into our human situation, and that He came into human nature as it was because of the Fall." Ibid., pages 44, 45. Neither Barth nor Johnson read Ellen White's writings. But they were great students of the Bible. I never said that it depended on Ellen White. Maybe others take that position but I never did. Second, John317, Karl Barth, and Harry Johnson are entitled to their opinion. However, your opinion is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE AS I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN YOU! Like I said in spite of the overwhelming evidence I have presented you are free to form your own opinion or join with any others in having a different opinion. However, just because you and others may hold these "men" in high esteem does not make them correct in their views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 This is a mere statement of an opinion, not evidence of the truth. Prove your conclusion from the Bible evidence and show your reasoning. The statement I made was based on the posts I made in which I presented overwhelming evidence from the Bible that you are wrong and that my assertions are supported by the Bible while yours are not! I have given you sufficient proof but you choose to reject it! That of course is your privilege! You also have the privilege of using Karl Barth as an authority as well. I do not consider him and authority. He did not keep the Sabbath. If Barth was such a great Bible student why did he keep Sunday as the Sabbath? Ellen White is not pure as the driven snow either as evidenced by many on this website who have pointed out using her quotations as evidence that she was not always Biblical. Again, you are free to use her as an authority in way you choose. However, it is not correct or fair for you to state that my views are merely unsubstantiated while yours are substantiated when in reality it is clear that the weight of evidence from the sole Source of the Bible demonstrates that your views of Jesus Christ and His Human Nature are indeed wrong. You presented an extremely weak case for your point of view. So to bolster you position you demand proof from me. As already stated you have been shown overwhelming evidence not only that what I assert is True but that you assertions are weak and wrong! Because you cannot prove your points from the Bible (as demonstrated by this whole thread and also at the "Creeds" thread) you then cite other sources as the authority for your views. Again, I assert that this is your right to use whatever authority you want to support your view. However, for you state that I have not made my case from the Bible and the Bible only is not correct. I have more than made my case. Thus, how can you ask such a question as "Prove your conclusion from the Bible" when this whole thread and the "Creeds" thread is loaded to the extreme with my Bible quotes and the quotes of others like Twilight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Sonny, Ellen White is NOT CORRECT! Ellen White believed that Jesus Christ took on the "sinful nature" of humanity at the Incarnation. THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL! You have dug yourself a hole, miz3. You have placed yourself in a theological corner. And your reaction speaks volumes. Why do you fight truth? Back to what I said in post # 456581: Now, you've already agreed that you have a sinful nature and you've already admitted that you died in Christ. That means that you were in the body of Christ and hence that body had a sin nature in it. So Ellen White is correct. Christ, as the Son of God, took upon His sinless nature OUR sinful nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 The statement I made was based on the posts I made in which I presented overwhelming evidence from the Bible that you are wrong and that my assertions are supported by the Bible while yours are not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 You've already stated that our humanity was in Him when He died, but here's the thing - when did our humanity get into Christ? You say, NOT AT THE INCARNATION! NOT DURING JESUS LIFE UP TO THE CROSS! When then? When did God put you into Christ and don't just say he put me into Christ at the cross because I won't accept this rant without absolute proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 When then? When did God put you into Christ and don't just say he put me into Christ at the cross because I won't accept this rant without absolute proof. THE CROSS SONNY, THE CROSS! You may not like it but that is when it happened! Do as you like but I have presented what the Bible says! The Bible says you are wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Sonny, Prove it happened at the Incarnation from the Bible and the Bible only! You can't because I have already shown you that it was impossible to have happened at the Incarnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.