What is salvation?

[WayneV]

it would be helpful if you would point out the error for "ignorant" folk like me. thanks in advance for understanding.

teresaq

My apologies for the mis-statement. It would have been better if I had told Robert to, "Please refrain from quoting people to support your views and then turning right around and stating that the author of the quote used is in error in that same quote." This was confusing to me because Rob quoted EGW to me to help explain his point. Then, a few posts later, states that she was in error in the very passage that Rob had quoted to me.

I hope this makes sense.

Agape`

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

It is a lie that there was a risk that Jesus Christ could have failed in accomplishing His part of the plan of salvation; Jesus was/is God, can God fail?

He has failed to get you to love the truth, which is why you believe strong delusion. But perhaps he has not given up on you yet.

Quote:

Don't be silly. Jesus Christ did not have a sinful nature, which would be required for Him to have failed.

That's not what scripture says.

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

I'll believe that text if you can show me who wrote it. The preponderance of evidence from the OT and from Jesus' words indicate that the Passover Lamb MUST be perfect, without spot or blemish, without sin. Human nature it sinful. The two do not mix. Please explain to me how this works, because I truly don't understand how a divine God can be sinful and still act in a sinless capacity.

[SivartM]

What is a "nature"?

[Musicman1228]

Jesus has the nature of God because He IS God. Just because God comes in human form does not mean that He is less God than when He was in the form of Michael the Archangel.

Jesus Christ was not born into sin; His human body had NO sin in it because God the Father and God the Holy Spirit 'begat' Jesus and implanted His embryo into Mary, who had contributed NO genetic material to Him. She was a surrogate mother. When Jesus Christ was born He became the Son of God (Divine) and the Son of Man (human). Prior to this event He was not the Son of God because He was God.

Human nature is sinful because human DNA is sinful, becoming such when sin entered the world. Jesus had NO sin in Him, even in His DNA, as do we. We are born into sin, Jesus was not. Therefore, being perfect in both body and spirit He was able to act in the capacity as the Passover Lamb in separating the Kingdom of Heaven from the kingdom of the world. He could not have done this had He had ANY sin of any kind in Him at all.

God cannot have sin in Him and still be God. Jesus was God (as the Son of God) and therefore could not possibly under any condition or circumstance have or have had any sin in Him, and still functioned as the perfect Passover Lamb, who had to die to pay the penalty for the disobedience of the Kingdom of Heaven.

If Jesus had any sin in Him or on Him when He paid this penalty on the cross then we are all dead. The fact that we have life through Jesus Christ is proof that He had no sin in Him when He went to the cross. Jesus paid our penalty without participating in sin in any way.

[teresaq]

What is a "nature"?

[pnattmbtc]

I'm only aware of two positions. One position is that Christ took the nature, or flesh, of fallen Adam. The other is that He didn't.

Both positions agree that Christ had certain characteristics which unfallen Adam did not have, such as getting tired, and being subject to death, and the other processes that our bodies are subject to because of the fall.

Where the two positions differ is in regards to whether Christ's temptations were purely external, and as to whether He had a self which had to be denied, as we do. That is, where His temptations like ours, in that we feel a desire or urge to do the wrong thing, and we have to say "no," contrary to this desire, or were they like the temptations of unfallen Adam, who only had an urge to do right, and actually had to act contrary to the promptings of his flesh in order to disobey.

I prefer the phrase "sinful flesh" to "sinful nature," which is the expression preferred by Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and other contemporaries of Ellen White. I find "nature" to prone to be misunderstood by people. For example, many take Ellen White's writings, and pick out statements where she speaks of "nature," but not in the context of "sinful flesh," and make conclusions about Christ's flesh, when that isn't what she's talking about. "Nature" can mean a great many things, depending upon the context. "Flesh" is much more limited. In a religious context, its meaning is unambiguous.

[Kevin H]

The church argued for a long time on the nature of Christ and studied, prayed and had a lot of heart ache, finally coming to the conclusion that Jesus had his own unique nature, not like Adam's before the fall nor after the fall, however having similarities and differences from both.

Once this was reached it became tradition and culture. In the 1890s as Mrs. White began to focuse more on Jesus and the trinity, she went for the traditonal nature of Christ. She kept quoting a theologian who did a wonderful job of discribing the traditional nature (I am not positive and someone please correct me) but I believe the man's name was Melville. (Even thought it was not Herman Melvilie, I always think of him when I hear this man's name). His work is wonderful and should be read. Mrs. White picked some of his best statements.

In Patararchs and Prophets Mrs. White described Adam's nature in Eden as his appitites, desires and passions were [naturally] under the control of reason.

I understand the sinful nature as "There is in man a disposition to think we are for ourselves by esteaming himself above his breathern, to serve self to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit." I also like what the Poet / Philosopher Eli Siegel says "There is in every person a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world."

As I understand Jesus' nature, his appitites desieres and passions were not NATURALLY under the control of reason, but that he needed to consiously submit them to reason, but Jesus did NOT HAVE THE DISPOSITION TO THINK HE WAS FOR HIMSELF BY MAKING LESS OF THE OUTSIDE WORLD. There was not the slightest taint of that disposition in him. We are sinners because because we have that disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice as not only did he not sin, but he did not have the disposition to think he was for himself by making less of the outside world. The lacke of this disposition has set Jesus miles away from us. However, unlike Adam, his appitites desiers and passions were not naturally under the control of reason and Jesus, like us, have to consciously keep our appitites, desires and passions under the control of reason. Jesus needed rest like we do etc. but he did NOT have the disposition to think he was for himself by making less of the outside world. (Have I said it enough times?)

In the 1950s as the discussion that lead to Questions on Doctrine were being discussed, Martin and Barnhouse were wondering if we held the traditional view of Christ, or if we were like Jehovah's Witnesses. Had we just said that we hold the traditonal view and left it there, or let them read Mrs. White's comments and show how she was quoting Melville(?) things would have been well. Sadly the QOD committee was caught off guard. When there are beliefs that have become part of our culture, we tend to take it for granted. Wanting to let Martin and Barnhouse know that we were not like the Jehovah's witnesses, they tried to give some words and emphesised the differences between Christ and us.

Elder Andreasen noticed that their answer was giving only half the truth. Had he realized that the QOD was stumbling and bumbling over a question that caught them by surprise and let it go things would have been fine and dandy. However he choose to point out that there was a portion of the truth that was neglected in the answer by the QOD committee. Even this was not bad, because he was pointing out neglected parts of the doctrine, which together with the QOD committee answer would have been united to be the truth.

The problem came that too many of us who were upset at QOD ended up grasping on the porton of the truth that Elder Andreasen was reminding us that we were missing, and rejecting the aspects of the truth that the QOD committee said; and others who were increadably forensic in their view of the atonment latched on to the portion of the truth that the QOD committee mentioned, reject the aspects of the truth that Andreasen pointed out was left out and thus with in Adventism we have left the truth and offer 2 hereies which both have aspects of the truth but at the expense of the rest of the truth.

Jesus had his own unique nature.

I hope this helps.

[karl]

The church argued for a long time on the nature of Christ and studied, prayed and had a lot of heart ache, finally coming to the conclusion that Jesus had his own unique nature, not like Adam's before the fall nor after the fall, however having similarities and differences from both.

[pnattmbtc]

Kevin, I appreciate your well thought out post, but a problem I see in it is that it would have Jesus Christ bypassing the law of heredity. In DA 49 we read:

Quote:

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.

If all of us have, "a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world," then, provided we got this by heredity, then Jesus Christ must have obtained this as well, and this would have been a part of the process of His denying self. Unless it's your idea that we all *develop* this disposition, in which case your assertion that we all have this but Jesus did not I would not find problematic. But this wouldn't have to do with the human nature Christ assumed.

I think a huge problem in discussing this issue is a lack of precision.

[pnattmbtc]

karl, I agree with your position, but think it would be more useful for you to present some sort of argument or comment in addition to what you post. For example, why do you think what you posted demonstrates that Christ's assumed human nature was a lot more like fallen man than unfallen man?

When I mentioned a lack of precision, this is an example. You simply said "His nature," which is ambiguous. I used the term "Christ's assumed human nature" to make clear what is being discussed. This is synonymous with "sinful flesh," which is the phrase our pioneers most often used (thinking of Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and their contemporaries).

My point here isn't to pick on you, but to bring out this lack of precision because a tactic I see applied over and over again by those wishing to argue, from the SOP, that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall, is to take certain statements which use the word "nature," but aren't talking about "sinful flesh," but "character," (another possible meaning of "nature," we certainly wouldn't was to say that Christ's nature was like sinful man in this respect) or something similar.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

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. DA49

So that's why it was important that the genealogy of Jesus was included in the Bible... I always wondered if He did indeed inherit..

[teresaq]

My point here isn't to pick on you, but to bring out this lack of precision because a tactic I see applied over and over again by those wishing to argue, from the SOP, that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall, is to take certain statements which use the word "nature," but aren't talking about "sinful flesh," but "character," (another possible meaning of "nature," we certainly wouldn't was to say that Christ's nature was like sinful man in this respect) or something similar.

then perhaps a thread to "hash" out the meanings? which i think is a good idea.

[karl]

karl, I agree with your position, but think it would be more useful for you to present some sort of argument or comment in addition to what you post. For example, why do you think what you posted demonstrates that Christ's assumed human nature was a lot more like fallen man than unfallen man?

When I mentioned a lack of precision, this is an example. You simply said "His nature," which is ambiguous. I used the term "Christ's assumed human nature" to make clear what is being discussed. This is synonymous with "sinful flesh," which is the phrase our pioneers most often used (thinking of Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and their contemporaries).

Yes, sorry about the imprecision. I was just trying to point out that Christ took a lot of what I call "devolution" (opposite of evolution) upon Himself. While He was the ONLY begotten Son of God, and therefore unlike us, He was hampered by this sinful, degenerate flesh we all possess.

That He stands uniquely apart from humanity is indisputable. That He deliberately came as close as Godly (not humanly) possible to humanity is the message of the Gospel.

[Kevin H]

I tried to summerize, but again may I encourage you to read LeRoy Moore's "Theology in Crisis" and works by the Neils who use to teach at Union College, and even more importantly Melville, or who ever it was that Mrs. White was quoting and summerizing. I support them as far as I understand them. All I can add is the empesses that they may not have emphesised is the importance of how the sinful nature is the disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, and how Jesus did not have this disposition.

[John317]

His nature was far more like ours than it was like the unfallen Adam's.

Christ didn't come to save unfallen Adam, and therefore it wouldn't have done any good to take on his perfect nature. The Bible clearly states that Christ was made in all things like his brethren. Heb. 2: 17. These obviously had a fallen nature. From the viewpoint of His body, He was descended from David. I believe the evidence is that Christ took our fallen nature without His mind being polluted by sinful passions. He resisted and overcame temptations the same way that we are enabled to do it, through the Holy Spirit.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: karl

His nature was far more like ours than it was like the unfallen Adam's.

I believe the evidence is that Christ took our fallen nature without His mind being polluted by sinful passions.

The very fact that He took our nature condemned him. See Gal 4:4

[pnattmbtc]

All I can add is the empesses that they may not have emphesised is the importance of how the sinful nature is the disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, and how Jesus did not have this disposition.

If this comes from heredity, then Jesus' flesh did have this disposition. He accepted the working of the law of heredity.

What needs to be separated is Jesus' divine nature and His human nature (i.e. sinful flesh). Another way of separating things is to speak of Christ's mind as opposed to His flesh. His mind was the "mind of Christ" but His flesh was sinful flesh.

Waggoner and Jones, especially the latter in his 1895 sermons, did a wonderful job explaining this. Prescott also had some good thoughts on this. So did Fifield and Hibbard, to mention a couple of lesser knowns.

[Kevin H]

Again, may I encourage you to read Mrs. White and the writer who she used as her sourse.

[Kevin H]

Christ didn't come to save unfallen Adam...

While I like the rest of your post, may I remind you that the unfallen Adam was living in a universe dealing with the issues of the Great Controversy and God being in the process of saving the universe.

[Guest]

Doesn't matter what was going on in the universe. All Adam could see was what was around him. Had he known of satan's rebellion in heaven, he wouldn't have been tricked so easily.

[karl]

Doesn't matter what was going on in the universe. All Adam could see was what was around him. Had he known of satan's rebellion in heaven, he wouldn't have been tricked so easily.

God instructed our first parents in regard to the tree of knowledge, and they were fully informed relative to the fall of Satan, and the danger of listening to his suggestions. He did not deprive them of the power of eating the forbidden fruit. He left them as free moral agents to believe his word, obey his commandments and live, or believe the tempter, disobey and perish.

[Guest]

Karl, can you show that they were fully informed about Satan? Not saying you're wrong, I would just like to see it.

[karl]

Karl, can you show that they were fully informed about Satan? Not saying you're wrong, I would just like to see it.

I got it from Story of Redemption

"God instructed our first parents in regard to the tree of knowledge, and they were fully informed relative to the fall of Satan, and the danger of listening to his suggestions. He did not deprive them of the power of eating the forbidden fruit. He left them as free moral agents to believe his word, obey his commandments and live, or believe the tempter, disobey and perish. They both ate, and the great wisdom they obtained was the knowledge of sin, and a sense of guilt. The covering of light about them soon disappeared, and under a sense of guilt, and loss of their divine covering, a shivering seized them, and they tried to cover their exposed forms." The Story of Redemption (1947), page 37, paragraph 1

[Guest]

I got it from Story of Redemption

Thanks karl

[teresaq]

Doesn't matter what was going on in the universe. All Adam could see was what was around him. Had he known of satan's rebellion in heaven, he wouldn't have been tricked so easily.

huh?!?

the first chapter of patriarches and prophets may help here, in addition to the first chapter of spirit of prophecy.

oh, i see the later posts. still those two chapters will help show what adam and eve were taught.