Christ's human nature...

[Dr. Rich]

What is the name of that great dance, John? What is so hard for people to understand about Jesus? He came down from heaven by the way of God the Father and the Holy Spirit implanting Him in the womb of Mary. Mary's eggs had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. (John 3)

[John317]

What is so hard for people to understand about Jesus? He came down from heaven by the way of God the Father and the Holy Spirit implanting Him in the womb of Mary. Mary's eggs had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. (John 3)

The Bible teaches that Jesus was of the seed of David. He was a descendent of David and Abraham and Adam. His favorite title for Himself was "the Son of Man." It means "son of Adam," i.e., son of dust. The Bible predicted that David would have a descendent sitting on the throne forever. Jesus Christ was that descendent. If Jesus of Nazareth inherited nothing from a human being, that is, from Mary, then Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah. Of course, if He didn't fulfill the prophecies, it could only mean Jesus was not the Messiah that God told us to look for. The true Messiah would be "the Branch" and "the root of David." Rev. 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Also, Jesus is our mediator because He experienced what it is to be fully human. He didn't pretend to be human but was as human as any other human is. He is human today and will always be human-- a glorified human being with a human body like the glorified body His brothers will receive at the Second Coming.

None of those things could be true if he inherited nothing from His mother, Mary.

[Gerr]

Here are some quotations from "Seventh-day Adventists Believe".

On God the Son, p. 46-47.

"5. The extent of His identification with human nature.

a) He was "in the likeness of sinful flesh." "In taking the "form of a servant" He laid aside divine prerogatives."..."Though made in the form or likeness of sinful flesh, He was sinless & His sinlessness is beyond questioning."

He was the second Adam. The Bible draws a parallel between Adam & Christ, calling Adam the "first man" and Christ the "last Adam" or "Second Man" (1 Cor 15:45,47). But Adam had the advantage over Christ. At the Fall he lived in paradise. He had a perfect humanity possessing full vigor or body & mind.

Not so with Jesus. When He took on human nature the race had already deteriorated through 4,000 years of sin on a sin-cursed planet. So that He could save those in utter depths of degradation, Christ took a human nature that, compared with Adam's unfallen nature, had decreased in physical & mental strength--though He did so without sinning.

When Christ took the human nature that bore the consequences of sin, He became subject to the infirmities & weaknesses that all experience...

Thus "Christ's humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin."

i) "In all points tempted as we are." ...Obviously "in all points" or "in every way" (NIV) does not mean that He met the identical temptations we meet today. He was never tempted to watch demoralizing TV programs, or to break the speed limit in an automobile."

From p. 48.

ii.) "Suffered, being tempted." ...How did Christ suffer under temptation? Though He had the "likeness of sinful flesh," His spiritual faculties were free from any taint of sin."

p.49 #6. The sinlessness of Jesus Christ's human nature.

The Bible portrays Jesus' humanity as sinless. His birth was supernatural--He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:20). As a newborn baby He was described as "that Holy One" (Lk 1:35). He took the nature of man in its fallen state, bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness. He was one with the human race, except in sin."

"Unlike that of fallen humanity, Jesus' "spiritual nature" is pure and holy, "free from every taint of sin." It would be a mistake to think He is "altogether human" as we are. He is the second Adam, the unique Son of God. Nor should we think of Him "as a man with the propensities of sin." While His human nature was tempted in all points in which human nature is tempted, He never fell, He never sinned. Never was there in Him an evil propensity."

Everything above was quoted from the book.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

You are carrying the "all things" to mean without exception.

Read the context of the verse. The author is talking about the nature of Christ. Here it is:

Hebrews 2:

16. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.

17. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren

The fact that He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit already limits the "ALL THINGS" you are talking about. He was in ALL things human, EXCEPT for sin. Nothing hard to understand at all.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

If a child dies for no reason that it has done, is that just?

No it is not just. But that doesn't mean that God isn't just. It is wrong to question

G: Wrong question?? You mean wrong question because 1) you don't know the answer? Or, 2) You know the answer but don't like it because pokes a hole in your argument?

Quote:

the justice of God simply because other's beliefs are different than yours. Your position is that if your theology is wrong, than God isn't just. Shame on you. Go back and read the Great Controversy again. That baby dies for the same reason an oak tree dies. Or are you going to tell us the oak tree is a sinner too?

Before you get bent out of shape, Shane, think through what you are saying. You say babies at NOT born sinners. Yet they are born disconnected from God, subject to God's wrath. And you bristle because I ask, is God just to do that?

No, the oak tree is not a sinner. But EVERYTHING that was given to Adam to rule, became recipients of the consequences of his guilt. Apparently this point has not sunk in, so I'll repeat it again. Adam as the representative of the human family, the father, the champion, was defeated in combat, and became Satan's subject, as are/were ALL his descendants. Had Jesus had inherited propensities to sin, He would have been the devil's subject also, and subject to God's wrath as well.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane, think through what you are saying.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

You have just described our participation in Adam's original sin!!! If we die as a consquence of Adam's sin, are you not saying that we die because we share in that guilt?

John: When babies die the first death, they are no more dying because of guilt for Adam's sin than are babies who suffer the consequences of their parents sins. The fact that a child suffers the consequences of a mother's wrong habits isn't proof that they are guilty of those sins.

G: But take away Adam's sin & there would be no sin of the parents. Take away the mother's or father's wrong habits and the child is still a child of "wrath". Again, let me ask you - for what reason?

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Furthermore, NOT ONLY do we share in that guilt, those who "are in the flesh", those born with SINFUL flesh, inherent sinful propensities "cannot please God...for it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot." (Rom 8:7-8). Everyone born with SINFUL flesh are born REBELS. In this regard, I agree with the Reformers' notion of the "total depravity" of fallen man. No way Christ was born morally corrupt.

J: I'm not arguing that Jesus was born morally corrupt.

G: If Jesus had a sinful nature with sinful propensities, how could He not be morally corrupt? If there was in Him a craving for something forbidden, then there is corruption, a taint of sin in Him.

John's quote: "Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of Gld came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; YET HE TOOK UPON HIM OUR SINFUL NATURE." RH December 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

J: Please note in this quotation that "sinfulness" and "our sinful nature" are not one and the same thing. The latter Christ "took;" but the former He did not possess. "Guile or sinfulness" are qualities of the mind quite opposite to "pure and undefiled." Surely it is clear that the "vestments of humanity" which Christ "took upon Him," whereby "He came down to the level of those He wished to save," was "our sinful nature."

G: If He took our sinful nature without its sinfulness, then what you are saying to me is that He took the nature that was the product of over 4000 yrs of deterioration but without the sin. Well, that's what I have been saying all along, but I thought your position has been that Jesus' human nature had the same evil propensities that we have. Did I misunderstand your position?

J: "It's very important for us to realize that the taking of our "sinful nature" did not defile Christ, nor taint His purity, nor did it produce in Him "guile or sinfulness," even though it was the means whereby "He came down to the level of those He wished to save."

G: John, to have an evil inclination, a bent to stray away, an inherent propensity to do wrong, means that one has been tainted, corrupted, by sin. Otherwise it would not have this bent, this evil inclination! If you are saying that Jesus took our sinful nature, meaning the deteriorated human nature minus the inherent propensity to do wrong, then we have no disagreement.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Shane, think through what you are saying.

S: It is not about what *I* am saying. It is about what the Bible teaches. " The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezk 18:20)

G: Hmmmm. Shane, are you implying I'm not basing my arguments from Scripture? I have already made it clear in answer to Ez 18:20, that as far as the second death, NO ONE will die on account of Adam's sin. But as for the first death, which really is just a sleep, Paul makes it clear, "In Adam ALL die."

S: Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

You say babies at NOT born sinners. Yet they are born disconnected from God, subject to God's wrath. And you bristle because I ask, is God just to do that?

IT'S NOT GOD'S FAULT! THE DEVIL IS THE ADVERSARY. DON'T BLAME GOD FOR THE DEVIL'S DEEDS.

G: You say it's not God's fault. And I AGREE with you. But yet you refuse to acknowledge that because Adam became a subject of Satan by virtue of conquest, every descendant of his is sharing in that defeat! That's the original sin that you are labeling erroneous Catholic doctrine.

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

No, the oak tree is not a sinner.

S: Well, we can agree there. It sure is a sad thing that those innocent oak trees have to die when they are not even guilty of any sin.

G: That;s collateral damage by virtue of collective guilt, just like the poor Japanese who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but got fried in Hiroshima..

[Dr. Shane]

you refuse to acknowledge that because Adam became a subject of Satan by virtue of conquest, every descendant of his is sharing in that defeat!

Every descendant inherits a weakened nature. Every descendant, including Christ, inherited that weakened nature. No one has been born guilty of sin.

We are born outside of God's family. In order for us to become children of God we must be adopted into the body of Christ. We are born with only a fallen nature and thus destined to sin. Our only hope is a divine adoption. Thus we are children of wrath until we become children of God. That is not to say that we are born guilty of sin. The Bible simply doesn't teach that. The pope does.

[doug yowell]

G: If He took our sinful nature without its sinfulness, then what you are saying to me is that He took the nature that was the product of over 4000 yrs of deterioration but without the sin. Well, that's what I have been saying all along, but I thought your position has been that Jesus' human nature had the same evil propensities that we have. Did I misunderstand your position?

J: "It's very important for us to realize that the taking of our "sinful nature" did not defile Christ, nor taint His purity, nor did it produce in Him "guile or sinfulness," even though it was the means whereby "He came down to the level of those He wished to save."[color:blue]

G: John, to have an evil inclination, a bent to stray away, an inherent propensity to do wrong, means that one has been tainted, corrupted, by sin. Otherwise it would not have this bent, this evil inclination! If you are saying that Jesus took our sinful nature, meaning the deteriorated human nature minus the inherent propensity to do wrong, then we have no disagreement.

Yep

[skyblue888]

Inclination is not sin any more than temptation is.

In his humanity Jesus of Nazareth felt the same drawing of the flesh that you and I and the other person do experience. The only difference is that Jesus never yielded to that drawing. For that reason He Himself was free from evil propensities but by partaking of our sinful nature He took ours and overcame them all.

sky

[Dr. Shane]

So true, Skyblue, so true.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

You have just described our participation in Adam's original sin!!! If we die as a consquence of Adam's sin, are you not saying that we die because we share in that guilt?

When babies die the first death, they are no more dying because of guilt for Adam's sin than are babies who suffer the consequences of their parents sins. The fact that a child suffers the consequences of a mother's wrong habits isn't proof that they are guilty of those sins.

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Furthermore, NOT ONLY do we share in that guilt, those who "are in the flesh", those born with SINFUL flesh, inherent sinful propensities "cannot please God...for it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot." (Rom 8:7-8). Everyone born with SINFUL flesh are born REBELS. In this regard, I agree with the Reformers' notion of the "total depravity" of fallen man. No way Christ was born morally corrupt.

I'm not arguing that Jesus was born morally corrupt.

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of Gld came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; YET HE TOOK UPON HIM OUR SINFUL NATURE." RH December 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

Please note in this quotation that "sinfulness" and "our sinful nature" are not one and the same thing. The latter Christ "took;" but the former He did not possess. "Guile or sinfulness" are qualities of the mind quite opposite to "pure and undefiled." Surely it is clear that the "vestments of humanity" which Christ "took upon Him," whereby "He came down to the level of those He wished to save," was "our sinful nature."

Our hereditary weakness is imprinted upon our bodies. This we all "take" from our earthly parents. The context of this inspired passage makes it obvious that Christ took our hereditary "sinful nature" in common with "every child of Adam" "whom He wished to save." The quotation clearly distinguishes between the flesh of our fallen human natures and sinfulness which is a function or state of the mind.

Since "the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God" (MCP 236)-- regardless of how evil a man's heredity may be,--- flesh of itself cannot sin. This principle applies to all men-- to us, as well as to Christ. Sinful, fallen flesh can only "act contrary to the will of God" as the mind directs it to do so; for it is in the processes or functions of the mind that "sinfulness" or righteousness originate and operate (see Mark 7: 20-23). One "takes" or inherits only the potential for "sinfulness" from his parents-- not the sinfulness itself.

Paul says, "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Romans 6:13). Clearly, the fleshly "members" of our bodies ae merely "instruments" of sin, or of righteousness-- "instruments" controlled by the mind.

Christ had these same hereditarily impaired human "instruments" (fleshly body) as we have; instruments capable of righteousness or unrighteousness. But his mind, constantly controlled by the indwelling Holy Spirit (having been born of the Spirit), always directed Him into paths of righteousness. Despite enormous temptations, never did He allow His mind to indulge in sinning. In other words, though Christ's humanity had hereditary potential tendencies to sin, He did no sin. Neither did He possess "a tendency to sin," a "bent to evil," a "taint of sin" or "an evil propensity." There is a vast difference between possessing tendencies to sin, and having only the hereditary potential for such tendencies.

The term "sinful nature" should not in any way be confused with the unscriptural, Augustinain term "original sin." Seventh day Adventists don't follow Augustine in this matter.

It's very important for us to realize that the taking of our "sinful nature" did not defile Christ, nor taint His purity, nor did it produce in Him "guile or sinfulness," even though it was the means whereby "He came down to the level of those He wished to save."

Concering Christ's human nature, one speaker clarified it in this way: "Christ took a fallen nature, but not a falling nature; He took a sinful nature, but not a sinning nature. Though Christ was sinless, the body He took was the product of 4000 years of falling and sinning." (See page 3 of Which Gospel?, Dr. & Mrs. Lloyd Rosenvold.)

As long as we accept the true Bible definition of sin, we will never have a problem understanding the quotations that state that, while Christ took upon Himself our "sinful nature," yet He was without sin: clearly, it was for the reason that He never transgressed His Father's law. Whichever spirit is permitted to control the functions of the mind of a man will determine the life and character (the "computer print-out") which it bears. We may choose to be controlled by the Holy Spirit as demonstrated in Christ, or the self and spirit of Satan, as we see in unconverted man.

Notice the following quotes:

"The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam" (RH Feb. 24, 1874).

"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin" (ST June 9, 1898).

"But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam, He accepted teh results of the working of the great law of heredity." DA 49.

"Christ came to the world to counteract Satan's falsehood that God had made a law which men could not keep. Taking humanity upon Himself, He came to this earth and by a life of obdedience, showed that it is possible for man perfectly to obey the law. Those who accept Christ as their Savior, becoming partakers of his divine nature, are enabled to follow His example, living in obedience to every precept of the law" (FILB 114).

Good post.

[Gerr]

Inclination is not sin any more than temptation is.

In his humanity Jesus of Nazareth felt the same drawing of the flesh that you and I and the other person do experience. The only difference is that Jesus never yielded to that drawing. For that reason He Himself was free from evil propensities but by partaking of our sinful nature He took ours and overcame them all.

sky

G: Are you saying that the child of a woman addicted to cocaine has not been tainted by the drug and therefore not an addict? That Christ had a craving to to satisfy His lust just like you & me yet was not sinful?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

you refuse to acknowledge that because Adam became a subject of Satan by virtue of conquest, every descendant of his is sharing in that defeat!

Every descendant inherits a weakened nature. Every descendant, including Christ, inherited that weakened nature. No one has been born guilty of sin.

We are born outside of God's family.

G: Shane, if no one is born guilty of sin, why then are they born disconnected from God? Sin is what separates us from Him!!! No sin, no separation!!! But since we are separated/disconnected, there must be sin SOMEWHERE! WHERE IS IT? We are not separated/disconnected because we are weak. Being weak in itself is not sin. It does not deserve disconnection from God.

Quote:

S: In order for us to become children of God we must be adopted into the body of Christ.

G. Agreed.

Quote:

S: We are born with only a fallen nature and thus destined to sin. Our only hope is a divine adoption. Thus we are children of wrath until we become children of God. That is not to say that we are born guilty of sin. The Bible simply doesn't teach that. The pope does.

G: Apparently, you don't accept what Ps 51:5 & 58:3, Rom 5:12, 8:7-8 are saying. We are conceived sinful, born sinners, born guilty, not only by virtue of Adam's sin, but also because sin has corruppted every fiber of a newborn's being. If a baby is born DESTINED TO SIN, he does so because he is born a sinner. If he is not born a sinner, he would not automatically sin. If the pope is teaching what I'm teaching, then I'm glad.

Did you read those excerpts I posted from the book, "Seventh-day Adventists Believe?" If you have the book, I suggest you read it. It's the official exposition of SDA doctrines.

[Dr. Shane]

if no one is born guilty of sin, why then are they born disconnected from God? Sin is what separates us from Him!!! No sin, no separation!!!

[pnattmbtc]

(quoting "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" 1988 ed., p.47:)Thus "Christ's humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen because it had never descended into moral impurity.

Pnat: This isn't correct. As quoted earlier in this thread:

G: This isn't correct?

[pnattmbtc]

Gerry: If Christ was born with a sinful nature, with the same inherent propensities for sin as we do, could be indwelt by the Holy Spirit from conception onward, WHY are we not indwelt by that same Spirit from conception onward? Is God playing favoritism? HOW could Jesus in the womb have love for the Father if He had the INHERENT propensity to rebel against God?

[pnattmbtc]

John, to have an evil inclination, a bent to stray away, an inherent propensity to do wrong, means that one has been tainted, corrupted, by sin. Otherwise it would not have this bent, this evil inclination! If you are saying that Jesus took our sinful nature, meaning the deteriorated human nature minus the inherent propensity to do wrong, then we have no disagreement.

[Gerr]

Twilight reposting Jn317 quote: "Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of Gld came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; YET HE TOOK UPON HIM OUR SINFUL NATURE." RH December 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

Please note in this quotation that "sinfulness" and "our sinful nature" are not one and the same thing. The latter Christ "took;" but the former He did not possess. "Guile or sinfulness" are qualities of the mind quite opposite to "pure and undefiled." Surely it is clear that the "vestments of humanity" which Christ "took upon Him," whereby "He came down to the level of those He wished to save," was "our sinful nature."

G: That is just saying what I have been saying. Christ took our human nature in its totality MINUS the sin. No craving, no inherent inclination or propensity for something unlawful.

J reposted by T: Since "the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God" (MCP 236)-- regardless of how evil a man's heredity may be,--- flesh of itself cannot sin. This principle applies to all men-- to us, as well as to Christ. Sinful, fallen flesh can only "act contrary to the will of God" as the mind directs it to do so; for it is in the processes or functions of the mind that "sinfulness" or righteousness originate and operate (see Mark 7: 20-23). One "takes" or inherits only the potential for "sinfulness" from his parents-- not the sinfulness itself.

G: So what this is saying then is that a child is not a sinner UNTIL he commits his first act that is "contrary to the will of God" as directed by the mind? This is clearly contrary to Ps. 51:5 & 58:3. If what you are saying above is correct, I'll repeat the question that I have brought up several times already: WHY THEN ARE WE ALL BORN "CHILDREN OF WRATH" IF WE ARE CONSIDERED SINNERS ONLY AFTER OUR FIRST SINFUL ACT?

J reposted by T:

Paul says, "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Romans 6:13). Clearly, the fleshly "members" of our bodies ae merely "instruments" of sin, or of righteousness-- "instruments" controlled by the mind.

G: Our members are NOT only the instruments of sin, our very instruments ARE INHERENTLY INDWELT BY SIN. Paul makes it clear. "sold under sin" (Rom 7:14), "So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." (Rom 7:17), "nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out" (7:18), " Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." (7:20), "captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." (7:23). TO HAVE INHERENT PROPENSITIES FOR SIN IS TO BE INDWELT BY SIN. Of Christ it was said, "IN HIM IS NO SIN."

2b continued.

[Gerr]

J reposted by T: Christ had these same hereditarily impaired human "instruments" (fleshly body) as we have; instruments capable of righteousness or unrighteousness. But his mind, constantly controlled by the indwelling Holy Spirit (having been born of the Spirit), always directed Him into paths of righteousness. Despite enormous temptations, never did He allow His mind to indulge in sinning. In other words, though Christ's humanity had hereditary potential tendencies to sin, He did no sin. Neither did He possess "a tendency to sin," a "bent to evil," a "taint of sin" or "an evil propensity." There is a vast difference between possessing tendencies to sin, and having only the hereditary potential for such tendencies.

G: That's an oxymoron. "Christ's humanity had hereditary potential tendencies to sin" and then in the next sentence say, "Neither did He possess 'a tendency to sin,' a 'bent to evil,' a 'taint of sin' of 'an evil propensity.'" That is clearly like Pnat's example of: 2+2=4; 2+2 is not=4.

J reposted by T: The term "sinful nature" should not in any way be confused with the unscriptural, Augustinain term "original sin." Seventh day Adventists don't follow Augustine in this matter.

G: I have not read what Augustine said exactly. I find it disconcerting to find an attitude that just because something is believed by Catholics that therefore it is erroneous. Well, they also believe in the Trinity which we also believe. Are we holding error? Let me repost again what the Reformers understood about original sin: ""original sin" means that sinfulness marks everyone from birth,in the form of a heart inclined toward sin, prior to any actual sins; this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins; it is transmitted to us from Adam, our first representative before God. The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin." Fronm "The Reformation Study Bible" ESV p. 781.

While SDAs may not hold the doctrine of original sin as Augustine originally proposed & exactly as the RCC believes, look at this quote from SDA Handbook of Theology if it is not saying pretty much what the Reformers believed:

"1.Romans 5:12

According to Romans 5, sin and death in humanity derive originally from Adam rather than from each individual person. Paul stresses repeatedly that a single action affects the whole of humanity. In verse 12, “sin came into the world through one man”; in verse 15, “many died through one man’s trespass.” In Romans 5:18, 19 “one man’s” trespass and disobedience led to condemnation, while “one man’s” obedience and act of righteousness brought life.

In verses 12–14, Paul offers evidence of how far-reaching are the effects of the sin that started with a single person. First, everyone sins (cf. Rom. 3:9–20). If everyone started his or her own line of sins, independently from Adam, someone, at sometime, might be able not to sin. Since this does not happen, it follows that we do not start out independently. In the second place, there was death even when there was no special revelation of commandments as in Eden or at Sinai. At those times, even though sin did exist as a violation of conscience, it lacked the aggravating character of being the transgression of a written norm. If it were true that everyone receives only the consequences of his or her own sin, the people of those times, not being as guilty as Adam, should not have been punished by death as he was. The fact that they died shows that their death was a consequence of Adam’s sin. (See Sin III. B; Death I. C. 1.)

2.A Misunderstood Passage

Romans 5:12 contains a bone of contention for translators and interpreters. The word “because” in the RSV stands for the Greek eph’ hō, literally translated “on which.” The Vulgate translated in quo omnes peccaverunt, “in whom all sinned.” This translation gives basis to the concept of “original sin,” by which every descendant of Adam, having sinned in Adam, is personally held accountable for the first sin.

However, “in whom” is not the idea expressed by the Greek eph’ hō, but en hō, a common Pauline phrase (cf. Rom. 2:1; 7:6; 8:3, 15; 14:21, 22; 16:2). Furthermore, nothing in the context requires a theory of transmission of blame. The phrase eph’ hō, means “on the basis of which” and may legitimately be translated as “because of which or whom.” This would fit the context well: Sin and death entered the world through one man, because of whom all sinned (cf. Rom. 5:19). The RSV use of “because” is misleading: one expects “because” to be followed by the cause, whereas what follows eph’ hō in Romans 5:12 is the effect. “Because all men sinned” should not, then, be understood as the reason that “death spread to all men.” Such an interpretation does not fit the context. Rather, that all have sinned shows the validity of the rest of the verse: Sin and death spread throughout the world, beginning with Adam. The understanding of the verse is confirmed by its analogy to the next point in Paul’s presentation. In verses 13 and 14, he argues that because people of all times have died, we must accept that death derives from Adam and not from personal sin.

This passage shows that if sin depended only on the individual exercise of free will, there would be no reason some saintly hero could not have avoided sin altogether. The lack of any such example in human history is proof of the fact that we cannot avoid sin. The pervasive power of sin that dwells within us (cf. Rom. 7:17) fatally translates itself into sinful thoughts, words, or actions at some point in the life of every human being. The pervasiveness of the power of sin is matched only by the saving power of the gospel.

Long before Paul wrote about the “sin which dwells within me” (verses 17, 20), God had pronounced the mind of man “evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21); pointing to an innate ethical bias toward iniquity. The book of Job abundantly reflects on the somber condition of man who, starting from his lowly birth on this earth, is irremediably “unclean” in the eyes of God (Job 14:1–4). Describing the sinful human condition, Job exclaimed, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one” (verse 4); and God affirmed to Jeremiah, “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt” (Jer. 17:9).

3.Irresistible Tendencies

According to the NT the unregenerate person, faced with the revealed will of God, is unable to fulfill or even fully appreciate it (Eph. 4:18). The mind “is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7, 8).

A careful education, the exercise of willpower, or any other human device is ineffective against an evil nature with its self-centered propensities. Barring God’s grace, the propensities of human nature inevitably lead to moral ruin. Hence the need for conversion before attempting to reform one’s life. (See Salvation I. E.) Evil propensities remain even after conversion, but not in their former irresistible power. Through regeneration a new life is possible, as will be shown in the next section.

In any case, the menacing character of sin does not reside on the superficial level of its fruits so much as in its deep-seated roots in human nature. Sin is “systemic” in our life. The “sin which dwells within me” (Rom. 7:17, 20) is the reason that “the evil I do not want is what I do” (verse 19). Scripture here calls the indwelling cause of evil deeds “sin,” which shows that the biblical concept of sin includes propensities, not merely evil deeds.

When speaking of the depraved human will a single exception must be made. Jesus Christ was sinless, though in every other way “like his brethren” (Heb. 2:17) in His human nature. In contrast with the rest of us, who are by nature “the children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3), He was from conception “the holy one” (Luke 1:35, NIV). He was never involved in sinful deeds (1 Peter 2:22) and the evil one had absolutely “no power” over Him (John 14:30; lit. “nothing in me”). A fuller discussion of this topic belongs to the biblical doctrine of Christ (see Christ I. B. 2), but an awareness of this exception to the doctrine of human depravity is important here."

Dederen, R. (2001). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (214–216). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

2b cont'd

[Gerr]

J reposted by T: It's very important for us to realize that the taking of our "sinful nature" did not defile Christ, nor taint His purity, nor did it produce in Him "guile or sinfulness," even though it was the means whereby "He came down to the level of those He wished to save."

Concering Christ's human nature, one speaker clarified it in this way: "Christ took a fallen nature, but not a falling nature; He took a sinful nature, but not a sinning nature. Though Christ was sinless, the body He took was the product of 4000 years of falling and sinning." (See page 3 of Which Gospel?, Dr. & Mrs. Lloyd Rosenvold.)

G: To me, the above just backs up what I have been saying: Christ inherited the totality of fallen humanity MINUS the sin & inherent propensity to sin.

J reposted by T:

As long as we accept the true Bible definition of sin, we will never have a problem understanding the quotations that state that, while Christ took upon Himself our "sinful nature," yet He was without sin: clearly, it was for the reason that He never transgressed His Father's law. Whichever spirit is permitted to control the functions of the mind of a man will determine the life and character (the "computer print-out") which it bears. We may choose to be controlled by the Holy Spirit as demonstrated in Christ, or the self and spirit of Satan, as we see in unconverted man.

G: That begs the question that I have repeated over & over. If we view a baby as sinless until it acts on a wrong impulse dictated by the mind, WHY THEN IS IT BORN A CHILD OF WRATH? BORN DISCONNECTED/SEPARATED FROM GOD?

J reposted by T: Notice the following quotes:

"The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam" (RH Feb. 24, 1874).

"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin" (ST June 9, 1898).

"But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam, He accepted teh results of the working of the great law of heredity." DA 49.

"Christ came to the world to counteract Satan's falsehood that God had made a law which men could not keep. Taking humanity upon Himself, He came to this earth and by a life of obdedience, showed that it is possible for man perfectly to obey the law. Those who accept Christ as their Savior, becoming partakers of his divine nature, are enabled to follow His example, living in obedience to every precept of the law" (FILB 114).

G: None of these quotes contradict the notion that Christs inherited the total humanity of fallen Adam MINUS the sin.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

if no one is born guilty of sin, why then are they born disconnected from God? Sin is what separates us from Him!!! No sin, no separation!!!

Sin does separate us from God but it doesn't have to be our own individual sin. Sin, in general, impacts all of creation. That is why oak trees die. Bad things happen to good people because of sin. This is all made clear in the Great Controversy. So many of these questions are answered in that great book.

G: If all creation is "impacted" by sin without being guilty of its own doing, whether you want to admit it or not, you are just stating the effects of "original sin!!!"

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Apparently, you don't accept what Ps 51:5 & 58:3, Rom 5:12, 8:7-8 are saying.

S: Well, I don't accept the pope's interpretation of what those verses say. That certainly should be apparent.

G: Please provide the quote what the Pope says and how you interpret those verses so we can compare them.

[Dr. Shane]

The effect of the false, Catholic doctrine of original sin is infant baptism. If the baby is born sinful, it must be baptized so that if it dies it will be saved.

[Dr. Shane]

Jesus took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature (MM 181). Not "our sinful nature minus ..." or "our sinful nature except" but "our sinful nature." Similarly, Christ "accepted the workings of the great law of heredity" "the results of which are seen in His earthly ancestors." What are these results? Every sort of sin and vice.

Now it's very important that we use clear language here, and this is where many problems occur. Christ's flesh was like our flesh, but His mind was "the mind of Christ."