Is Temptation Sin?

[John317]

Ahhh, ok, I get it. The church is getting ready to split into two groups. One group believes that sin comes by way of birth while the other believes that Christ was born with sin and through a connection with the Father was able to resist and defeat His sin.

No one in the SDA church believes that Christ was "born with sin." Christ did not sin even by so much as a thought. Being born with the nature of Adam after the Fall is not the same as being born with sin.

This begs the question whether sin is nature or choice. Some SDAs have been influenced by the so-called "Evangelicals" and believe that sin is nature. Other SDAs believe that sin is a choice. They see the Bible as viewing sin primarily as choice and not nature.

To understand the view that sin is choice and not nature, check out the following link:

http://www.presentruth.com/2009/04/victory-over-sin-how/

[Lutz13]

Ahhh, ok, I get it. The church is getting ready to split into two groups. One group believes that sin comes by way of birth while the other believes that Christ was born with sin and through a connection with the Father was able to resist and defeat His sin. I'll let this issue rest. For a bit there I thought SDA's rejected the doctrine of Original Sin OR accepted it provided that Christ was born with it. Thanks for blowing the smoke off this for me Richard. I would guess that the Liberals are the ones who advocate Christ was born with sin and worked His way through it.

No, I'm pretty sure most SDA's agree that He never sinned once in His life. But was tempted to sin, yet never did sin. That is what I understand.

He was born into a sinful body but conquered it and never sinned once.

Maybe I wasn't clear?

[Woody]

The SDA church is obviously not united on the topic of the nature of Christ. Naturally the conservatives would like to spin the topic in one way and the liberals would like to place emphasis on another. I don't see a problem with the church not having all the answers to all the questions. I think that this is what we will learn in Heaven and throughout eternity ... the great mysteries of God.

[Gustave]

John317 & Lutz13,

Which group, between the two groups Richard described, do you consider yourselves a part of? Sacred Scripture establishes that we are born saturated with sin and this can be confirmed by watching VERY small children on a play ground.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

[Gustave]

Redwood,

Are there any doctrines within the denomination that require the conservative or liberal view? Generally, at least it's my understanding that this falls in the area of the Trinity and so it's entry level belief.

I would tend to agree with you that there will be a host of questions that will be answered on the other-side. I would agree with that as long as there isn't a doctrine somewhere that REQUIRES that Christ was born into sinful flesh. If it's a doctrinal requirement there must be something produced officially from the denomination.

[Guest]

Gustave, check out this link. It states our basic beliefs. I think this may clear some things up for you.

http://www.brooklawn.org/

[John317]

John317 & Lutz13,

Which group, between the two groups Richard described, do you consider yourselves a part of?

I stand with those who believe Christ was born with the nature of Adam AFTER the Fall. It's the same position as the great neo-orthodox, Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, takes in his Church Dogmatics.

See Hebrerws 2: 10-18; 4: 14-16; 5: 7-9; 2 John 7; Matt. 1: 1; Romans 1: 3.

[Tom Wetmore]

Gustave,

Since this is an unofficial Adventist forum and an open place for discussion, what you see reflected here may not be reliably what the Seventh-day Adventist Church holds officially. Here are the fundamental beliefs on its official website - http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/ . Perhaps there is within Adventism more latitude for differences of opinion on the nuances of faith than may be sanctioned officially within your own Catholic faith.

I do have one question for you. Earlier you stated that "Mary did not give birth to Jesus 'in sin'". Could you explain more fully what you mean by that? I have have had a very brief explanation from a Catholic perspective but am not sure I fully understand how Catholic doctrine concludes that Mary, the human mother of Jesus herself could not have passed a sinful human nature to him. Does the Catholic Church hold that she was sinless? That her human nature was not tainted by sin? Would not her tainted sinful nature somehow been genetically or in utero passed to him?

Tom

[John317]

From the SDA publication, Bible Readings, published 1914. (It is still published and circulated today but with some changes, primarily having to do with the human nature of Christ.) http://www.preparingforeternity.com/br1914/brhc39.htm This was the view of all SDAs until about 1940. The turning point in our church on this doctrine was the publication of the book, Question On Doctrine, published in 1957. .

If interested in the writing of this book and its impact, see A Fork In the Road, Questions on Doctrine, The Historic Adventist Divide of 1957. It was written by Herbert Douglass who knew the men who wrote Questions On Doctrine and was there when the events happened.

The following is from Bible Readings:

A Sinless Life

1. WHAT testimony is borne concerning Christ's life on earth?

"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." 1 Peter 2:22.

2. What is true of all other members of the human family?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Rom. 3:23.

3. With what question did Christ challenge His enemies?

"Which of you convinceth Me of sin?" John 8:46.

4. To what extent was Christ tempted?

"[He] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15.

5. In His humanity, of what nature did Christ partake?

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Heb. 2:14.

6. How fully did Christ share our common humanity?

"Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Verse 17.

NOTE.- In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not "made like unto His brethren," was not "in all points tempted like as we are," did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits,- a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is "born of the Spirit" may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. Rev. 3:21. Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7.

7. Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin?

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Rom. 8:3.

NOTE.-God, in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment-seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh.

8. By whose power did Christ live the perfect life?

"I can of Mine own self do nothing." John 5:30. "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." John 14:10.

NOTE.-In His humanity Christ was as dependent upon divine power to do the works of God as is any man to do the same thing. He employed no means to live a holy life that are not available to every human being. Through Him, everyone may have God dwelling in him and working in him "to will and to do of His good pleasure." 1 John 4:15; Phil. 2:13.

9. What unselfish purpose did Jesus ever have before Him?

"For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." John 6:38.

[John317]

And this: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-04.htm

This is representative of the church's current position on the nature of the humanity of Christ. However, there are those who disagree with some of the details, on both sides of the question.

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

John317 & Lutz13,

Which group, between the two groups Richard described, do you consider yourselves a part of?

I stand with those who believe Christ was born with the nature of Adam AFTER the Fall. It's the same position as the great neo-orthodox, Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, takes in his Church Dogmatics.

See Hebrerws 2: 10-18; 4: 14-16; 5: 7-9; 2 John 7; Matt. 1: 1; Romans 1: 3.

I agree. That is also my understanding.

[Gustave]

check out this link. It states our basic beliefs, I think it may clear some things up for you.

[Guest]

He had no sin in him.

For we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our weaknesses; but was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:15

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the nature of Abraham. Heb 2:16

But he took on our sinful nature, without sinning.

[Gustave]

I stand with those who believe Christ was born with the nature of Adam AFTER the Fall. It's the same position as the great neo-orthodox, Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, takes in his Church Dogmatics.

Then you would agree with Karl Barth when he, in Church dogmatics tied this belief to the one that states that God has no way of being w/out incarnating into flesh. Furthermore Barth's view taught that God's act of Election constituted His actual Triune Being. In otherwords God exists because of something other then His Being. I didn't realize SDA's acccepted Metaphysics as a means to formulate doctrine.

[Guest]

Gustave, I think you havee John317 and Lutz13 confused.

John317 is the one who made the statement about Karl Barth.

[Gustave]

He had no sin in him.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

I stand with those who believe Christ was born with the nature of Adam AFTER the Fall. It's the same position as the great neo-orthodox, Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, takes in his Church Dogmatics.

Then you would agree with Karl Barth when he, in Church dogmatics tied this belief to the one that states that God has no way of being w/out incarnating into flesh. Furthermore Barth's view taught that God's act of Election constituted His actual Triune Being. In otherwords God exists because of something other then His Being. I didn't realize SDA's acccepted Metaphysics as a means to formulate doctrine.

As Richard pointed out, I'm the one who referred to Karl Barth.

But no, the fact that he believed that Christ took the post-fallen nature of Adam does not mean that we agree with Barth on all aspects of his theology.

[Gustave]

Opp's sorry. My bad. I retract that statement.

[Gustave]

As Richard pointed out, I'm the one who referred to Karl Barth.

But no, the fact that he believed that Christ took the post-fallen nature of Adam does not mean that we agree with Barth on all aspects of his theology.

When Barth details "why" he believed that, logically one would conclude you would agree with the route he took to reach that point.

Ok, that begs the question of how you agree with his determination and not the methodology used to reach it. How is it that you agree with Barth - what theological base have you used to reach the same determination if not Barth's?

[John317]

The Sacred Scripture states He was in all ways like us except for sin.

Charles B. Williams' translation of Hebrews 5: 15, "For we do not have a High Priest who is incapable of sympathizing with us in our weaknesses, but we have One who was tempted in every respect as we are, and yet without committing sin."

Hebrews 2: 16-18, "For of course it is not angels but descendants of Abraham that He is to help. Therefore He had to be made like His brothers, so that He could by a sympathetic High Priest, as well as a faithful one, in things relating to God, in order to atone for the people's sins. For inasmuch as He has suffered Himself by being tempted, He is able to give immediate help to any that are tempted."

The text says Jesus was made like His human brothers. All of those brothers have the nature of Adam after the Fall. It also says He was tempted in every respect as we are. What do these things mean?

They were real temptations, and they could only have been real if Jesus could really have sinned and fallen. Jesus knew from experience what it was like to be tempted as sinners are tempted. That is to say, He knew what it was like to be tempted from within as well as from without. It could not say He was "tempted in every respect as we are" if He didn't experience what James 1: 14 describes. Jesus was not "exempt" as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception makes Him.

Jesus Christ has two natures: fully divine and fully human. Deity was not tempted by sin but the human was. In the same way, Deity did not hunger and get tired but the human did. Again, Deity did not die but the human did.

[John317]

When Barth details "why" he believed that, logically one would conclude you would agree with the route he took to reach that point.

Ok, that begs the question of how you agree with his determination and not the methodology used to reach it. How is it that you agree with Barth - what theological base have you used to reach the same determination if not Barth's?

People, of course, may agree in their conclusion and yet have two totally different reasons for arriving at that conclusion. Other Christian non-SDA have arrived at the same conclusion based strictly on the testimony of Holy Scripture.

For instance, see the Expositors Greek Testament, Vol. 2, pp. 645, 646. In its comments on Romans 8: 3, 4, it says, " But the emphasis... is on Christ's likeness to us, not His unlikeness. ... what he [Paul] means by it is that God sent His Son in that nature which in us is identified with sin... The flesh... in which sin had reigned was also that [flesh] in which God's condemnation of sin was executed." "The flesh meant is our corrupt human nature."

I have to leave in a few minutes, so I can't write very much at this time, but if you read the previous post, #284581, you'll see at least a partial answer to your question. Please also check out post #284547.

I'll be back later today to continue this good discussion. :-)

[Gustave]

Charles B. Williams' translation of Hebrews 5: 15, "For we do not have a High Priest who is incapable of sympathizing with us in our weaknesses, but we have One who was tempted in every respect as we are, and yet without committing sin."

[Guest]

Temptation is not sin. It comes from Satan, not from you yourself. It is your natural desire to want to give in, but by the power of God you don't have to.

1Co 10:13 There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above that you are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it.

Jesus also was tempted by Satan, but never once did he sin.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

[Guest]

But if we do sin we have an advocate with God the Father. Jesus Christ being the advocate.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

[Gustave]

Temptation is not sin. It comes from Satan, not from you yourself. It is your natural desire to want to give in, but by the power of God you don't have to.