Christ's-Human-Nature

[Robert]

”Born of a Woman...”

- What do those Words Mean?

I know what they mean! We all share one life - the life of Adam after the fall. We are bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. We all share his fallen life. The way we receive his life is through procreation. Therefore the only thing our mothers could pass on to us is a life that has sinned and therefore stands condemned.

-BC- FW

-TI- Faith and Works

-CN- 11

-CT- Obedience and Sanctification

-PR- 03

-PG- 88

We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt [condemnation] and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression.

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

[Tammy]

I think there is truth and error on both sides....I believe that Jesus took our sinful flesh... If we believe the Spirit of Prophecy, we must believe that...

Quote:

Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man's behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin. No taint of sin was upon Him. He declared, "I have kept my Father's commandments in My earthly life" (John 15:10). He had infinite power only because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will. The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might become the Owner of all humanity.--Manuscript 99, 1903.

But He did have an advantage over us...and He offers to give us the same advantages....to bring us UP to His level...

Quote:

Every advantage that Christ had in the conflict He has made it possible for man to have. ... Oh, if men would avail themselves of their advantages, they would in turn become victors over the powers of darkness. More will be written on this subject. --Letter 191, 1899.

[TreeOfLife]

A Subtle Misquote Easily Made…

Re both quotes below: My emphasis added: red color.

Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man's behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin. No taint of sin was upon Him. He declared, "I have kept my Father's commandments [in My earthly life]" (John 15:10). He had infinite power only because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will. The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might become the Owner of all humanity.--Manuscript 99, 1903. {3SM 141.5}

[jasd]

>>I don't believe Jesus had to take on the human nature of the sinner He came to save.<<

Indeed, as many passages of Writ attest and the story of Boaz and Ruth confirm - Jesus Christ had only to be a

near relative to qualify as Redeemer of man. That is,

human, but conceived without man's imputed sinful nature.

[Tammy]

Sorry, TreeofLife, I thought the what was in the brackets was her words...are you sure? No worry...I'm not offended... Thanks!

[Robert]

Quote:

.. but He yielded not to sin. No taint of sin was upon Him.

This means there wasn't the slightest sin found in Christ....He never sinned....This isn't saying that Christ never assumed our humanity indwelt with sin.

Rob

[jasd]

Tree of Life

>>An enigma that, so long as not resolved and corrected, remains standing as an important cause for much suffering, strife, and death because of the misconceptions and misperceptions that are generated as a consequence…<< [/ed.jasd]

Unfortunately, not this side of heaven, surely...

>>Your challenging passage reminds me of the mightily abused and misconstrued translations reflected by the following KJV passages:<< [ed.jasd]

Not so much issued as such, but more thought of as clinical observation...

Quote:

Quote:Tree of LIfe

Psa 137:8 KJV O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Psa 137:9 KJV Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

[...]

Psa 137:8 TLT O daughter of Confusion, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Psa 137:9 TLT Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. [/ed.jasd]

I think that you must, as I, see a demarcation, which separates these last two verses of Psalms 137 from the preceding - rendering them prophetic, yes? That said,

I find the free-form rendering of text in The Living Torah – somewhat difficult to accept – finding practically all things Talmudic too esoteric to elicit my appreciation. Perhaps it is that I am too rigid.

Though Babylon seems to be most often conflated with “confusion” (Gen 11:9) – I believe that Babylon can also be sense to sense translated as ‘window or gate to heaven’ (bab.i.lu). When attempting to understand prophetic Writ, I believe, also, it may behoove us to remember – it is accepted that – Babylon originated our modern banking system.

Upon the point where accepted exegesis re expositors’ Babylon-is-confusion-is-Catholicism – I part company – as, in fact, Babylon’s religions were Persian by origin.

I hazard that should Gd have desired to alert us to a falsity vis-à-vis basic Catholicism He would have pointed us to Persia rather than to Babylon.

Quote:

Quote:Tree of Life

H894: From H1101; confusion; Babel (that is, Babylon), including Babylonia and the Babylonian empire

Yes, Babylonia, and its ‘banking’ system.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Tree of Life

Heb 9:22 KJV And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Heb 9:22 TLT And almost all things are by the law purged by Words of Truth; and without shedding of words of truth there is no remission.

It is my small opinion that the TLT takes license re the above. Okay, so I sometimes lack flexibility...

Quote:

Quote:Tree of Life

H1818: From H1826 (compare H119); blood (as that which when shed causes death) of man or an animal; by analogy the juice of the grape; figuratively (especially in the plural) bloodshed (that is, drops of blood)

H1826: A primitive root (compare H1724, H1820); to be dumb ; by implication to be astonished, to stop ; also to perish

H1820: A primitive root; to be dumb or silent ; hence to fail or perish

I do that at times; for instance, in the case of apostasy as it derives from revolt/revolution; however, I do believe that what the TLT does with Hebrews 9:22 suggests, somewhat, interpretive interpolation...

Quote:

Quote:Tree of Life

Re Psa 137:8-9: Blessed and joyful shall be the one that destroys error and confusion in its cradle…

I tend to the thought that the texts of Psalms 137:8,9 is best translated as is done in the KJV...

KJV Ps 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

KJV Ps 137:9 KJV Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

...and is prophetic, harmonizing with the texts of Revelation 18:6,7... following:

Rev 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

Quote:

Quote:Tree of Life

Re Heb 9:22: Effective communication and the thoughtful restraint of words, silence, is the key to the stopping of wars. Words are silver, but silence is gold.

Regardless how far the above may depart from a transliteration, a sense to sense, or other critique upon the quality of its translation – the above is a good adage by itself.

>>Remember, and do not forget, these words, "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved," found at the pivotal point of the Jesuit Oath, very similar to the corresponding words of KJV Hebr 9:22.<<

I do not know this from Chick Publications; however, be that as it may, I think it is true that the Church, herself, did not believe in like manner, but as pertains these matters – avoided the shedding of blood, preferring to strangle or burn at the stake.

>>I don’t see how those misconstrued words are not at the very heart of most, if not all, of the worst atrocities committed...<<

Though not denying that the Catholic Church committed reprehensible acts throughout its history – I think the Jesuit Order is ‘credited’ much too much; and remind that it was the Dominican Order that was, more or less, responsible for the atrocity that was the Inquisition.

>>...against living men and women by the Roman Catholic Church...<<

As parcel the above statement, it seems the sad effects of the Crusades accounted for many, many, deaths; but then, we must bear in mind that it were the Muslims who first committed acts of war against Xtianity.

>>...and by her theistic and atheistic religious daughters as so aptly illustrated by Revelation 17:5.<<

Did not the Vatican send its legates to Indonesia some few years back in an attempt to influence a change in governmental practices re Suharto’s nepotism and cronyism - and failed? Subsequently, the IMF sent their own representatives - resulting in a Suharto govt capitulation - within a matter of weeks. Ipso facto, new govt.

With whom did power lie? ...not the Vatican.

I submit that it is today’s banking [usury] capitalism, which more properly represents the often misinterpreted “daughters of Babylon”. After all,

any ‘mystery’ which may have formerly attended Catholicism has long since been ‘stripped away’ or otherwise revealed by such as Alexander Hislop’s "Two Babylons", and others – with any remaining ‘mystery’ a matter of simple conjecture.

Several years back a book with the interesting title “Secrets of the Temple” was published. It dealt, primarily, with the arcanery that is the Federal Reserve System with subtopics dealing with such as the different forms derivatives take, etc.

“Nobody understands how the economy works and I mean nobody.” --Bernanke

Mystery? I’d say...

It may be that that which is most obvious more complies with the theory of Occam’s razor.

[jasd]

>>Consider the infamous events of the Inquisition, or to bring it a little closer to home, Stalin and USSR, WWII and Nazi Germany, Rwanda May 1994, the war in former Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia, 400+ concentration camps recently built upon the North American continent, [...] actively pursuing much the same things as during WWII, 9/11 WTC, April 19 1995 Oklahoma City, WACO April 19 1993, Jim Jones French Guiana…<<

Scary – but surely, you didn’t mean to imply that all of this itemization should be laid to the RCs, did you?

>>Remember Saul before he became Paul!<<

I think that he was always Paul – his Latin name, being that he was a Roman citizen. Saul was but his Hebrew name. Now he is St Paul and it may be appropriate to address the question as to why he elected to use his Roman name...

Matt 21:43 ...The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Tweaking rather than twittering, but which “nation” thereafter these words were spoken – most extolled the fruits – Jesus Christ is Gd, and He was crucified that we might live?

>>I find value in recognizing that ‘Saul’ means one who questions;<<

As does Gd, in Genesis 3 and in the book of Job...

>>Do I dare to seek the real answers for myself?<<

But of course! “[it is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.” (Prov 25:2)

>>But back to where we began, Psalm 51:5…

What is the context of Psalm 51:5?<<

David is, herein the text, admitting to the intrinsic fact of his constitutional, or native nature re his sinfulness.

>>Looking up Psalm 51:5 in The Complete Word Study Old Testament (Warren Baker, D.R.E., General Editor (1994)) I find the word “pipf.pnx” next to the word “conceive.” [...]<<

No offense, but I found the above explicative somewhat over-encumbered with what I can only describe as a form of legalese.

>>Thus a more correct rendering of Psalm 51:5 would be, or so it seems to me, one reflecting the concept found in the words “God isn’t finished with me yet” or, in terms of Psalm 51:5: “My mother isn’t finished with me yet.” How about this:

Quote:

Psalm 51:5 TLT Ooops, I was dancing in iniquity and in the sin of my hot feelings, which feelings of mine were extending beyond those I learned from my mother.<<

I found also in checking a number of Biblical translations that their translators concur with the simplicity of the KJV...

Psalm 51:5 KJV Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

...as do I; that is, ‘original sin’ was/is imputed in/at the very moment of conception.

Quote:

Quote:Tree of Life

I see no basis for believing that Psalm 51:5 can or should be used as a foundation or as a pillar of faith upon which one can sustain a belief contrary to the more fundamental words of Genesis 1:31…

Quote:

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

That is, I see nothing sustainable within Psalm 51:5 in terms such as:

Quote:jasd

Spermatozoa meet ovum and ovum says, “Come on in, big fella.” Ipso fact, conception. Man is conceived in sin (...in sin did my mother conceive me. Ps 51:5). [ed.jasd]

So, Genesis 1:31 contours the simple sense of Psalms 51:5? Okay, so what transforming act occurred after Gd made His assessment re the sixth day of creation?

>>Besides, if David committed a crime...<<

No, the dialogic point is verse 5, Psalms 51.

>>...or an error of thought,<<

No, again. His assessment re the innate and native nature of man was correct.

[Robert]

He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. [4BC 1147]

He took upon his sinless nature our sinful nature [7ABC 450]

[BobRyan]

Robert is quoting Ellen White???? (Ok where is the man behind the curtain this time)

[BobRyan]

Most Christians and almost All Adventists would call this "The sinLESS nature" of Christ -

Sinless nature of Christ:

Quote:

be exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of

Christ. Do not set him before the people as a man with propensities of sin.

He is the second Adam. The first was created a pure, sinless being,

without the 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 propensities of disobedience (sin)). But Jesus Christ was

the only begotten Son of God

....

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. 5BC 1128 (7a BC 447).

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 the

humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest

your words be taken to mean more than they imply

...

Never in any way, leave

the slightest impression upon human minds that any taint or the inclination

to corruption (sin) rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption

...

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. 5bc 1128-1129 (7a BC 448).

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.

Youth's instructor June 2 1898 (7a BC 446)

he was to take his position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but

not the sinfulness of man. Signs of the times may 29 1901.

Christ "vanguished satan in the same nature over which in Eden satan obtained

the victory" Youth's Instructor April 25, 1901.

In taking upon himself man's nature in it's fallen condition Christ did not in the

least participate in its sin.... We should have no misgivivings in regard to the

perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ 5BC 1131 (7a BC 447)

the human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering the was more keenly

felt by him; for his spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin.

Signs of the times Dec 9 1897.

7BC 912 "he was to take his position at the head of humanity by taking the

nature (of man) but not the sinfulness of man".

Christ was sinless "not possessing the passions of our human, fallen

nature" 2T509

Christ did not become "a sinner by his incarnation" SD 25

Christ is our "brother in our infirmities but not in possessing like passions" 2T202

Christ's "character revealed a perfect hatred for sin" 5bc 1142.

Christ "became like one of us except in sin" sd 23

"as the sinless one his nature recoiled from sin" 2T202

in Christ "no thought or feeling responded to temptation" DA 266

"no polution of sin received by Christ as result of his incarnation" DA266.

[BobRyan]

contrast that with the "fallen sinful human nature" of the children of Adam.

Quote:

The first (Adam) was created a pure, sinless being, without the 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 (sin)).

5BC 1128 (7a BC 447).

Christ was sinless "Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen

nature" 2T509

Christ is our "brother in our infirmities but not in possessing like passions" 2T202

GC 467

It is the work of conversion and sanctification to reconcile men to God by bringing them into accord with the principles of His law. In the beginning, man was created in the image of God. He was in perfect harmony with the nature and the law of God; the principles of righteousness were written upon his heart. But sin alienated him from his Maker. He no longer reflected the divine image. His heart was at war with the principles of God's law. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son," that man might be reconciled to God. Through the merits of Christ he can be restored to harmony with his Maker. His heart must be renewed by divine grace; he must have a new life from above. This change is the new birth, without which, says Jesus, "he cannot see the kingdom of God."

DA 172

Jesus continued: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." By nature the heart is evil, and "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." Job 14:4. No human invention can find a remedy for the sinning soul. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." Rom. 8:7; Matt. 15:19. The fountain of the heart must be purified before the streams can become pure. He who is trying to reach heaven by his own works in keeping the law is attempting an impossibility. There is no safety for one who has merely a legal religion, a form of godliness. The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit.

[jasd]

>>Just because there were no sperm in the conseption of Christ doesn't take away from the fact that Mary was fully human and a sinner like all of us.<<

I believe everyone, including the RCs, believe that St Mary, as we, needed a Saviour – and it is Jesus Christ.

>>I hope I'm not understanding you to say that she was partly divine.<<

No, I do not think anyone who parses text believes that St Mary was “partly divine”.

>>If that is what you're saying then there is not much left to talk about.<<

But there is – much more than either of us are able or qualified to “talk about”.

>>christ came to do in the flesh what we could not do with out his grace.<<

Jesus Christ came to do what no one, other than Himself incarnated – was able or qualified to do – “grace” notwithstanding.

>>when Christ won the victory over sin, he gave his victory to us so that by the faith of Christ operating in our lives we can have the same victory.<<

Ultimately, yes.

>>Christ obviously was not completely like us because he never sinned, but that is the only difference between his humanity and ours.<<

Should He have shared our ‘native nature’ wherein sin was imputed at conception – according to the antitypical Tabernacle laws – He would have been unacceptable as a sacrifice. Ipso facto,

no salvific sacrifice, no Saviour, no Redeemer. Satan would have had his victory.

>>If he had a nature that he did not have to conquer,then why would he even need the father? Why would he even pray? What use would there be for the spirit?<<

He was invested with humanity, not the sin nature. Holy Writ informs us that He was the Second Adam; was Adam created with a sin nature? No. Subsequent events proved that he could be tempted and acquiesce to temptation. Adam was, as Tree of Life seemed to imply,

created good, as Gd beheld him.

>>In like manner we can do nothing with out his power.<<

We can sin without any impetus from Jesus Christ.

>>Why was christ even tempted if there wasn't a possibility that he could sin? Why would Satan tempt Jesus in the same eria that Adam fell?<<

Was Adam created with sin an integral part of his nature? However, he was tempted – and succumbed to temptation.

>>How is it that Jesus overcame Satan in the same way we must by the written word?<<

We overcome in Jesus Christ. His righteousness is ours – freely offered.

>>Those who believe that Jesus took on the sinful nature of Adam so that he could gain the victory for us are not pulling him down to our level.<<

But indeed, they are. They proselytize a blemished Jesus Christ, Gd.

When the Israelite brought his or her antitypical offering to the Tabernacle or Temple, he or she, when required to offer a sacrifice without spot or blemish, instead brought a blood offering that was diseased (though outwardly unnoticeable) – it was an unacceptable offering. Likewise, it was so

with the ultimate archetypal/Typical offering. A diseased offering would have been a blemished offering.

Is that the sort of picture you would offer others of your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ – when declaring Him?

I think not.

>>The reason for the spotless lamb was because Jesus never sinned not that he had an unfallen nature.<<

Read my above – diseased.

>>Ezekiel is very clear that the son will not die for the sin of the Father.<<

Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have [occasion] any more to use this proverb in Israel.

Notice the verb tense in the above. An aside: notice that Ezekiel is much concerned with things future; that includes things millennial. Anyway, take note of what Gd said...:

Ex 20:5 ... visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Unless Gd provided for an interdiction that the iniquity of the fathers could not carry forward re Jesus Christ, He would have inherited “the iniquities of the fathers” and have bee endued with sin/iniquity – proving unsatisfactory -- to become the unspotted and unblemished sacrifice.

>>So Jesus was like all babies born with out sin and since he commited no sin he is the spotless lamb of God.<<

Read my above observation re a diseased sacrifice.

>>She is just a simple believer who trusts her savior to complete what he started in her.<<

That is commendable; moreover there exists the superlative... following:

Jn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

‘Whosoever now lives and believes in me shall never-never, not-never, not-ever, ain no gonna never, die. Tell me you understand.’ (the “shall never” in John 11:26 is a double negative...)

[Robert]

Quote:

being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves,

Of course....

Use this analogy: When you accepted Christ the Holy Spirit became one with you. He resides in your spirit (inner mind). He lives in you. The Bible is clear on this.

Now, has your sinful nature changed? No. Are you still a sinner, even though as you mature you'll reflect Christ more and more? Yes, you are still a sinner; you are still mortal.

Does the Holy Spirit, who lives in you, become contaminated? No. Why not. Because He didn't become you. He remained Himself. Likewise you didn't become the Holy Spirit.

Now reverse this. Christ is God. He became one with our humanity in the womb of Mary through the incarnation. He gave up the independent use of His Divinity for 30 something years and lived in our shoes, but He was still God in sinful flesh. Was that fallen life His? No! It was ours.

Therefore assuming our fallen humanity didn't contaminated Christ because He always remained Himself, God.

-BC- LHU

-TI- Lift Him Up

-CN- 3

-CT- Lift Him Up as the Son of Man

-PR- 02

-PG- 76

Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood.

[guibox]

Good quotes, BobRyan.

It is quite plain that EGW disagreed with the current traditional thought of 'Christ was just like us! He overcame, so we can too!' that many like the Standish brothers, Larry Kirkpatrick, Herbert Douglass, Dennis Priebe and Kevin Paulson believe to support their erroneous theology of the 'last generation'. The belief that the end time generation will be sinlessly perfect in thought and action and no longer needing Christ as a mediator, to stand on their own merits.

- Christ was conceived by the Spirit and born of a virgin

- Christ had to be the sinless, spotless sacrificial lamb that was required.

- Christ was fully divine as well as human

- Christ could not have inherited the sin of Adam for He would have had to have needed a Savior Himself

- Christ came to bridge the gap between man and God and end the separation, not continue in it

People who don't want to give Christ any advantage (even though it is in our favor), and make Him just like us who could have sinned by thinking a bad thought, only want an Example to follow so they can ultimately save themselves through sanctification.

This is heresy...This is salvation by works. This is Catholic theology that came from the Council of Trent, this is not Reformation theology.

[Robert]

He overcame, so we can too!'

Jesus took us into Himself to rewrite our history so that we would be legally justified by faith. Anything outside this is the wrong focus and leads to cold hard legalism

[Neville Peter]

So are you saying that we are sinners just because we were born? So then how do you define sin? The Bible only gives us two defining texts. 1 John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law. and James 4:17 to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin. Are there any other texts in the bible that gives us another definition?

Now what does a baby know? It knows that if it crise it will have its needs met. Are you saying that when jesus was a baby he never cried? You can't be saying that or are you? What of mary was she divine? Wasn't she a woman just like your mother? Doesn't the bible say that he was born of a woman? The word of God says he knew no sin yet he became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21).What does this text mean to you? I asked many questions in my last post and I was hoping that you would answer at least one of them. So now we are on the baby thing. Will you not answer this question either? Is it a sin for a baby to cry when its hungry?

[Guest WilloMar]

Dear guibox, some thoughts on BobRyan’s quotes.

1. Christ was conceived by the Spirit and born of a virgin. Correct!

2. Christ had to be the sinless, spotless sacrificial lamb that was required. Absolutely! But He wasn’t born that way. E. G. White makes it clear that Jesus became the second Adam. Not like the Adam before sin, but the second Adam after sin. He developed a perfect character: “And the Child grew, and waxed (became) strong in the Spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon Him.” Luke 2:40.

3. Christ was fully divine as well as human. Positively!

4. Christ could not have inherited the sin of Adam for He would have had to have needed a Savior Himself. Rubbish! He developed a perfect character as our example. To show that we can too, through Him.

5. Christ came to bridge the gap between man and God and end the separation, not continue in it. Yes, to bridge the gap... but, not to continue in the...GAP?...SIN...? Are you serious! Don’t you know that we who teach will be judged more harshly? James 3:1.

Waiting for Jesus!

[Lutz13]

Quote:

So then how do you define sin? The Bible only gives us two defining texts. 1 John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law. and James 4:17 to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.

Easy. What is the law? The law is selfless love. Any act that is self centered is sin.

[TreeOfLife]

”Any Act That is Self Centered is Sin?”

Originally Posted By: Neville Peter

So then how do you define sin? The Bible only gives us two defining texts. 1 John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law. and James 4:17 to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.

Easy. What is the law? The law is selfless love. Any act that is self centered is sin.

[Tammy]

Bob, I tried to send you a PM, but this message popped up:

"BobRyan is over their Private Topic limit."

[Lutz13]

Quote:

1. If I eat according to Genesis 1:29 when I am hungry, is that an “act that is self centered… sin?”

Is eating self centered? How you would even consider that is beyond me. However if you are eating and see someone who is hungry and do not share. Then that is selfish and you are not taking care of your neighbor.

Quote:

2. If I take a shower or bathe when I am dirty, is that an “act that is self centered… sin?”

How or why you would think this is self centered is beyond me.

Quote:

3. If I go to the bathroom to relieve me from excess pressures, is that an “act that is self centered… sin?”

Once again...How is this considered self centered?

Quote:

4. If I go to bed early at night because I’m trying to follow a healthful practice and because I am tired, is that an “act that is self centered… sin?”

Seriously...Get real.

Quote:

5. If I ask for a little water from a lady who is drawing water from a well, is that an “act that is self centered… sin?”

Etc etc....

You are going too far with this. It is very simple. Love God with all your heart and mind. How? There are 4 commandments that show how. If it is inconvenient for you to do so...then you are being selfish. Love your neighbor as yourself. Take that self love and apply it to your neighbor instead. Don't know how? There are 6 commandments that describe what to watch out for. Failure to do these are an act of being selfish. Sin is the transgression of these laws. In other words, being selfish....

[BobRyan]

Notice the "starting condition" at birth being described in the quotes below.

That person who starts that way - needs the Gospel benefits provided by Christ. That infant does not need to confess anything or repent of anything -- but they need "a new nature". If that infant dies - they go to heaven at the resurrection and the new nature is provided them.

Christ did not need a new nature.

Quote:

The first (Adam) was created a pure, sinless being, without the 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 (sin)).

5BC 1128 (7a BC 447).

Christ was sinless "Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen

nature" 2T509

Christ is our "brother in our infirmities but not in possessing like passions" 2T202

GC 467

It is the work of conversion and sanctification to reconcile men to God by bringing them into accord with the principles of His law. In the beginning, man was created in the image of God. He was in perfect harmony with the nature and the law of God; the principles of righteousness were written upon his heart. But sin alienated him from his Maker. He no longer reflected the divine image. His heart was at war with the principles of God's law. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son," that man might be reconciled to God. Through the merits of Christ he can be restored to harmony with his Maker. His heart must be renewed by divine grace; he must have a new life from above. This change is the new birth, without which, says Jesus, "he cannot see the kingdom of God."

DA 172

Jesus continued: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." By nature the heart is evil, and "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." Job 14:4. No human invention can find a remedy for the sinning soul. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." Rom. 8:7; Matt. 15:19. The fountain of the heart must be purified before the streams can become pure. He who is trying to reach heaven by his own works in keeping the law is attempting an impossibility. There is no safety for one who has merely a legal religion, a form of godliness. The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit.

[BobRyan]

Good quotes, BobRyan.

It is quite plain that EGW disagreed with the current traditional thought of 'Christ was just like us! He overcame, so we can too!' that many like the Standish brothers, Larry Kirkpatrick, Herbert Douglass, Dennis Priebe and Kevin Paulson believe to support their erroneous theology of the 'last generation'. The belief that the end time generation will be sinlessly perfect in thought and action and no longer needing Christ as a mediator, to stand on their own merits.

I agree with the first part of your statement - Christ did NOT have any inherited or natural "propensities to sin" -- but (by contrast) we fallen humans all do have that sinful propensity by nature - from birth. I call that "the sinful nature" and so do most other Christians.

However I do not agree with your conclusion that because we start with a sinful nature - therefore Romans 6 is not true - and we are slaves to sinning for the rest of our lives. I find that Romans 6 and 1Cor 10 clearly address that point showing that the Gospel DOES provide victory over sinning!

Your gospel is too small.

Which means that Andreason's "Final Generation" doctrine was correct even though his statements about Christ having a sinful nature were not accurate.

in Christ,

Bob