Christ's human nature...

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

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."

G: What's wrong with the above picture? My position that Christ inherited fallen human nature in its totality MINUS sin you consider to be erroneous, and NOW you are proposing that He had "accepted the workings of the great law of heredity" MINUS/EXCEPT the mind of man? :smile:

[Gerr]

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.

G: That's good to know, but what I asked for was the Pope's explanation & your exposition for the verses so I could compare them.

Have you read/seen anything I posted intimating I am about to propose newborn baptism?

[Gerr]

Pnat:

Ellen White did NOT endorse Melville's view. She DID endorse the view of Jones and Waggoner. And, more than this, she expressed her own view, and how that view was understood was explained by Haskell:

It's inconceivable that EGW would allow the chief mouthpieces of the church, (Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, etc.) to be arguing against the Holy Flesh movement at the very point that the Holy Flesh group was correct! That makes no sense.

G: It is pointless to argue who endorsed whom. And it would be even more inconceivable for the official publication of the church's doctrines to quote the very words of Melvill instead of the words of the ones you claim were endorsed by EGW. Here are the very words of Melvill quoted verbatim by "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" expressing the official position of the church on the human nature of Christ:

"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 hever descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin." p. 47.

And in case you missed the excerpts I presented from the book, here are a few more statements:

"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." P.49.

"Jesus Christ took upon Himself OUR NATURE WITH ALL ITS LIABILITIES, BUT HE WAS FREE FROM HEREDITARY CORRUPON OR DEPRAVITY AND ACTUAL SIN." p. 49

"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. ....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." Ibid.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

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?

P: There's no time limit as to when a person can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Even in the womb this is possible.

G: Then why aren't we all? Is God playing favorites? Does He want us all to sin except His Son?

P: In regards to Christ, an important point to not forget is that Christ was God. That no doubt had an impact on His experience in the womb, as a newborn, and young infant.

G: Let me remind you that His divinity was of NO use to Him. He did not cling to His prerogative as God, but took the form of a slave. He laid it aside. If His divinity had an impact in "his experience in the womb, as a newborn, and young infant", then He did not not inherit the totality of fallen humanity as you claim He did.

P: Trying to make an argument in regards to Christ's assumed human nature from newborns is hopeless. We have gobs and gobs of clear statements regarding human nature in regards to humans who have reached the age of conception. In regards to before the age of accountability, we have virtually nothing, but we do have the following:

Quote:

It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery.(Baker letter)

G: Arguing Christ's humanity from newborns is hopeless for you because your argument falls apart when you consider the newborns or the unborn. You cover up that deficiency by resorting to "mystery" while failing to attribute mystery to the same phenomenon that produced a being in the person of Christ that had the fallen nature of man in its totality minus the sin & inherent sinful propensity.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God. (16MR 182)

P: Please note that Christ took our fallen nature, but corruption would only incur depending upon His action. It's not the flesh that corrupts, but the action of the mind that brings corruption. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.

G: If you are interpreting the above quote to mean that we are not sinners until we commit the first wrong act, then let me ask you what I have already asked many times: Why then are the descendants of Adam born "children of wrath?" Furthermore, why does Paul say, "sold under sin", "sin that dwells in me, that is, IN MY FLESH," "if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, BUT SIN THAT DWELLS IN ME," "captive to the law of sin that DWELLS IN MY MEMBERS." Rom 7.

[teresaq]

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."

[Gerr]

Teresaq: So, basically you all are saying, in different words, that Christ took on our body, but not our mind, our physical state, but not our mental/spiritual state?

G: Actually, I'm now a little confused about Pnat's position. In the beginning of this discussion, I had the distinct impression that he was arguing that Christ possessed our sinful human nature including inherited evil propensities. Jesus just did not act on them. Now he is saying Jesus had all that but had the mind of Christ from birth. As for Shane, he is saying that Christ was born with all the inherent sinful propensities at birth just like we all are, that no one is born a sinner. As I understand it, John is saying Jesus inherited our sinful nature without its sinfulness, thus making a distinction between sinful nature and sinfulness. Correct me guys if I am misstating your positions. My position is very simple - that Christ possessed the fallen human nature that had over 4k yrs of genetic deterioration, with all its liabilities MINUS/EXCEPT for indwelling sin & inherent propensities for sin. IOW, Jesus had the make-up of a man after >4k yrs of deterioration, but as the second Adam, He had the innocence of Adam before the fall.

[Dr. Shane]

so, basically you all are saying, in different words, that Christ took on our body, but not our mind, our physical state, but not our mental/spiritual state?

I don't think that is what the Bible teaches. The Bible says Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Furthermore, it says the reason for this is so that He can be a merciful High Priest. If Christ only took on weakened human flesh and not the weakened mind, than He couldn't have been tempted as we are.

The difference between Christ and us is simply that He was born with a connection to God and we are not. He relied on God the Father & HS for victory over sin. He is also our Example. We must rely on Him & the HS just as He did on the Father and HS. If He was different than us, He couldn't have been our Example.

The doctrine of original sin comes from Catholism. We are born with a sinful nature, separated from God but not guilty of sin (unless it was prenatal sin).

[Dr. Shane]

As for Shane, he is saying that Christ was born with all the inherent sinful propensities at birth just like we all are, that no one is born a sinner.

Yes, the only reason Christ didn't sin is because He relied on His Father (& HS) from His birth. Had He ever stopped relying on Them, He would have sinned because He had a weakened nature just like us. Consequently, the He offers us that same victory if we will rely on Him.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

As for Shane, he is saying that Christ was born with all the inherent sinful propensities at birth just like we all are, that no one is born a sinner.

Yes, the only reason Christ didn't sin is because He relied on His Father (& HS) from His birth. Had He ever stopped relying on Them, He would have sinned because He had a weakened nature just like us. Consequently, the He offers us that same victory if we will rely on Him.

G: But Shane, reliance is a CONSCIOUS decision. A fetus or a newborn or a toddler cannot do that if He is like the rest of us.

BTW, what do you think of Paul's statements in Rom 7 regarding the sinful flesh being indwelt by sin? Was Jesus indwelt by sin?

[Dr. Shane]

Obviously when He was born, Jesus was not like us in that He was connected to God and we are not. That logically means that He was able to exercise free will as an infant and make conscious decisions.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Shane posted:

I don't think that is what the Bible teaches. The Bible says Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Furthermore, it says the reason for this is so that He can be a merciful High Priest. If Christ only took on weakened human flesh and not the weakened mind, than He couldn't have been tempted as we are.

The difference between Christ and us is simply that He was born with a connection to God and we are not. He relied on God the Father & HS for victory over sin. He is also our Example. We must rely on Him & the HS just as He did on the Father and HS. If He was different than us, He couldn't have been our Example.

The doctrine of original sin comes from Catholism. We are born with a sinful nature, separated from God but not guilty of sin (unless it was prenatal sin).

Great post, Shane! Great points.

Prenatal sin? You want to expound that?

In Christ,

JawgeFromJawja

[Dr. Shane]

Prenatal sin is obviously something that is not discussed in the Bible. The logic goes like this. Sin is the act of selfishness. We know that the fetus can make decisions. So then the next question would be if it makes selfish decisions. Perhaps... If the fetus is making selfish decisions in the womb, then the infant could be born a sinner, guilty of its own sin.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Infants have reflexive actions. They don't "make decisions." Behavioral Psychology 101.

[Dr. Shane]

That is the current thinking although there are psychologists that disagree. This field of study is advancing and new things are being discovered all the time. It is an intriguing consideration but still speculation either way.

[Gerr]

Obviously when He was born, Jesus was not like us in that He was connected to God and we are not. That logically means that He was able to exercise free will as an infant and make conscious decisions.

G: Christ able to make prenatal & infant decisions? Couldn't find any in the internet to support that notion. Can you direct me to any articles?

[Dr. Shane]

There will always be some mystery to the exact workings of the Holy Spirit and Christ in His infancy and early childhood. All we can do is accept the Word of God as understood through Sola Scriptura and speculate on the details which have not been revealed.

One of my ministries is to work with those that have been traumatized by childhood rejection. That traumatization often begins during the prenatal period. Psychologists are learning more and more about this period of our lives. Since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, it is not unreasonable to speculate that He was making conscious decisions while in the womb.

[Dr. Rich]

If Jesus was God and God has NO evil (sinful nature) then why believe people who wrote what they ONLY thought but did not have any evidence to prove their belief--from the OT and the words of Jesus?

Isn't like the blind leading the blind? Both fall over the cliff because one had placed their faith on another who was also blind?

Shane wrote: "In order for us to become children of God we must be adopted into the body of Christ." This isn't what Jesus said nor taught. He never said anything about being adopted. John 3 is clear that even IF you want to see the KOH that you first must be BORN of the Rauch (Holy Spirit), the motherly part of the Family of God. But before you can do that, you must first overcome sin and become righteous--meaning WITHOUT SIN. (Read the 6th message to the KOH found in Rev. 3)

[Gerr]

There will always be some mystery to the exact workings of the Holy Spirit and Christ in His infancy and early childhood. All we can do is accept the Word of God as understood through Sola Scriptura and speculate on the details which have not been revealed.

One of my ministries is to work with those that have been traumatized by childhood rejection. That traumatization often begins during the prenatal period. Psychologists are learning more and more about this period of our lives. Since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, it is not unreasonable to speculate that He was making conscious decisions while in the womb.

G: You talk on one side of your mouth "sola scripture" and then on the other speculation? I have backed up my position with scriptures which you have not as yet all addressed. As I recall, you have presented two verses: Ez 18:20 & Heb 2:17, which I have both addressed. I suggest you & whoever else believe that Jesus had inherited evil/sinful propensities study what our own church officially believes. If Jesus could make decisions while still in the womb, here's another hole in your argument that as the Seed of Abraham He was in "ALL THINGS MADE LIKE HIS BRETHREN". No fetus, no newborn, and I dare say even a toddler can make a conscious decision about right and wrong. They have to be taught. That's why the earthly parents of Jesus had to be carefully chosen, especially the mother, to fill His pre-fallen Adamic moral/spiritual nature with all the right things so He would be able to make the right decision.

[Gerr]

If Jesus was God and God has NO evil (sinful nature) then why believe people who wrote what they ONLY thought but did not have any evidence to prove their belief--from the OT and the words of Jesus?

Isn't like the blind leading the blind? Both fall over the cliff because one had placed their faith on another who was also blind?

Shane wrote: "In order for us to become children of God we must be adopted into the body of Christ." This isn't what Jesus said nor taught. He never said anything about being adopted. John 3 is clear that even IF you want to see the KOH that you first must be BORN of the Rauch (Holy Spirit), the motherly part of the Family of God. But before you can do that, you must first overcome sin and become righteous--meaning WITHOUT SIN. (Read the 6th message to the KOH found in Rev. 3)

G: Dr. Rich, if you think you can overcome sin and become righteous on your own, or even if as a born again person you don't consider yourself as being at some variance with God's revealed will, then you are either, 1) deluded 2) don't understand God's perfection & holiness, or 3) don't understand what sin is. The Bible uses a number of metaphors to illustrate how man who was created in His image but became children of the devil on account of sin, could be brought back into the family of God. 1) Atonement - the great cover-up 2) Redemption - the great buy-out, 3) Covenant - the great & solemn Promise 4) Propitiation - the great Appeasement, 5) a New Heart - the Great Transplant, are prominent in OT & NT, 6) new birth 7) adoption 8) grafting are NT concepts. Do you reject adoption because it is a Pauline metaphor? And how did Abraham become righteous? Enoch? Moses?

[Dr. Shane]

G: You talk on one side of your mouth "sola scripture" and then on the other speculation?

I do not rely on speculation for the formation of doctrine. I rely on the Scriptures as interpreted with the Sola Scriptura method. I speculate only on matters not revealed in Scripture.

I, and others here, have provided multiple verses that show babies are not born guilty of sin (unless it could possibly be prenatal sin). This belief is what the church officially teaches. We do inherit sinful flesh but that is not the same as inheriting the guilt of sin. Inheriting sinful flesh means we inherit the weakness of the sinful nature. Christ inherited the flesh BUT He was born with a connection to God which He clung to so that He never sinned. We are not born with that divine connection thus we are destined to sin.

The term "all things" in Hebrews 2:17 refers to the nature of Christ. That is defined in verse 16. Obviously Jesus had something we don't. His Father was divine. So the term "all things" doesn't mean He had two sinful parents like we do. The term means He had a fallen/sinful nature as defined in verse 16.

[Dr. Rich]

Good morning Gerry, thanks for the reply. As it is monday morning and many emails and phone calles to get to, I may not have time to answer 'all' of your questions. But I do want to 'call' your attention to one verse and that is Gen. 4:7. This is the very first reaction of God where He has interactions with humans in regards to 'sinful nature', as Cain was the offspring of Adam. Look closely and you will see that God is advising Cain to master (overcome) sin on his own because sin's desire is present with Cain.

You should notice that God said that Cain must master this himself. So tell me please, when did God change His mind about overcoming sin? Please provide the scriptures for this change. Then I will show you that God never changes--and after that we will have a controversy.

If you can, please show me from the book of Revelation how one overcomes sin. What I have found I have already presented, and that is that humans must overcome sin themselves. So, what I see is that the first book in the bible agrees with the last book.

Therefore, Christ could NOT have taken on any inhereted traits from Mary or He would not have been the perfect and spotless lamb.

Question: If Jesus had been allowed to live a full life, would He then die a natural death---as humans?

And I must object to your opinion that I am "either, 1) deluded 2) don't understand God's perfection & holiness, or 3) don't understand what sin is." I could say the same thing about you--but I won't for I know that you were only 'jesting' with me.

And I reject adoption because Jesus NEVER said this or even taught it-not merely because Paul wrote about it. It's not about what Paul said or did not say--it is ALL about what Jesus said and taught! Paul was a human who never met Jesus, admitted he had a demon and that nothing good was in him. So why would anyone even want to listen to him or read what he has to say about anything?

Abraham was considered righteous because he chose to obey God--same for Enoch, Noah, Moses, David, Joseph and Mary.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

G: You talk on one side of your mouth "sola scripture" and then on the other speculation?

I do not rely on speculation for the formation of doctrine. I rely on the Scriptures as interpreted with the Sola Scriptura method. I speculate only on matters not revealed in Scripture.

G: And you think I've been basing mine on speculation? I've given you scripture after scripture. Where are these "multiple verses" that you are talking about?

Quote:

S: I, and others here, have provided multiple verses that show babies are not born guilty of sin (unless it could possibly be prenatal sin). This belief is what the church officially teaches.

G: You say this is what the church believes, but you have not provided one quote from the official published doctrine of the SDAC. I have quoted you passages from the book, "Seventh-day Adventists Believe", did you even bother to read it? Have you checked the book?

[Dr. Shane]

G: You say this is what the church believes, but you have not provided one quote from the official published doctrine of the SDAC. I have quoted you passages from the book, "Seventh-day Adventists Believe", did you even bother to read it? Have you checked the book?

I have not had to quote SDA sources because you have. What you have quoted support the belief that I have been espousing. Nothing you have quoted from SDA material states that infants are born guilty of sin. We are born with sinful flesh, yes. But we are not born guilty of sin.

The Catholic church believes that we are born guilty of sin. (I am not Catholic.) That is why they have infant baptism. Furthermore they believe in the immaculate conception of Mary which caused Mary to be born free of sin and thus able to give birth to Jesus free of sin. It is a train of dominoes of false doctrines. The first domino in the train is that of original sin. Adventists reject that as it is not based on sound Biblical doctrine.

[Gerr]

Shane: We do inherit sinful flesh but that is not the same as inheriting the guilt of sin.

G: Then explain to me what Paul meant when he said, "For as in Adam all die," (1 Cor 5:22), "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Eph 2:3). No sin, no death, remember? So why are all the descendants of Adam subject to the first death? Born children of wrath?

After Adam sinned EGW had this to say: "The whole family of Adam must die." EW p.149. WHY? What has his children done?

Another EGW quote: ""The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23. While life is the inheritance of the righteous, death is the portion of the wicked. Moses declared to Israel: "I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil." Deuteronomy 30:15. The death referred to in these scriptures is not that pronounced upon Adam, for all mankind suffer the penalty of his transgression.[/b] It is "the second death" that is placed in contrast with everlasting life." GC 544. The very book you told me to read!

Why should anyone suffer the penalty for something they didn't do? IT IS BECAUSE AS THE HEAD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY, OUR REPRESENTATIVE, HE SUFFERED DEFEAT AND WE SHARE IN THAT DEFEAT/GUILT!

S: Inheriting sinful flesh means we inherit the weakness of the sinful nature. Christ inherited the flesh BUT He was born with a connection to God which He clung to so that He never sinned. We are not born with that divine connection thus we are destined to sin.

G: I was destined to sin like every descendant of Adam save ONE, because sin "dwells in me" (Rom 7:17), "captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members," (Rom 7:23). Sin was already in me when I was conceived. I was born a sinner, just as the Psalmist claimed, 51:5 & 58:3.

S:The term "all things" in Hebrews 2:17 refers to the nature of Christ. That is defined in verse 16. Obviously Jesus had something we don't. His Father was divine. So the term "all things" doesn't mean He had two sinful parents like we do. The term means He had a fallen/sinful nature as defined in verse 16.

G: Face it, Shane, the "all things" did NOT include a sinful flesh that had the inclination/propensity that was destined to go wrong.