Christ's human nature...

[Gerr]

[Dr. Shane]

G: Shane, I find it VERY curious that you consider it unjust for a newborn to be condemned for the sin of Adam, and yet seem to be perfectly contented that an innocent baby (as you claim a newborn is) is condemned for a sin that it will commit in the future BEFORE he commits them!!!

I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I am just getting back to the PC since finishing the day's activities. Will probably post some stuff on my FB page later.

The issue here is the human perspective and the divine perspective. From a human perspective, newborns are innocent because they haven't sinned yet. However God operates outside the dimensions of time. God doesn't know the future because He can see into it. He is already there (so to speak). So when God looks at a baby He doesn't just see the baby at that point in time. God sees the baby's entire life. If that is not the case, He couldn't have died for our sins before we committed them. It is equally just for God to forgive us of our sins before we commit them as it is for God to condemn us of our sins before we commit them.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Why is that the "main" question?

G: Because your answer will show whether you REALLY believe a baby is innocent at birth or not, and whether you REALLY believe Jesus had inherited exactly as the fallen nature of Adam was. It cuts to the chase. I wish I had thought of the question first!

If God creates a baby in the womb and that baby dies before it ever has a chance to think one selfish thought,,, what will be written against that baby in the books of heaven?

The blood of Jesus blots out our sins. If the baby never sinned, what would the blood blot out?

Of course, the Bible doesn't reveal to us the salvation of still-borns. So this is speculation.

[Dr. Shane]

G: I thought you were not into speculation?

I don't base any of my doctrinal beliefs on speculation. However when we venture into areas that are not revealed to us, I feel quite free to speculate. I do that a lot with the subject of origins.

[skyblue888]

Since John the Baptist and Jesus were both born again from the womb, it is possible for every child of Adam after the fall to be born again from the womb on account of the parent's faith. If the parent's faith is of the right order, they may claim the merits of Christ for their offspring that they may be born from above from the womb.

This is my understanding.

sky :

________________________

G: There's a BIG difference. Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit, the Baptist was not. And the latter still needed the Lamb of God to take away his sin/s.

Gerry Gabalo

_________________________

Yes Gerry, big difference.

We are talking about being "born of the Spirit"

John the Baptist's character was molded by the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. He was born again from the womb. That is what we are talking about.

Big difference

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see any way we can place John The Baptist and Jesus in the same category. John had two Earthly parents. Jesus had only one.

[wayfinder]

He had two also, Joseph and Mary

[skyblue888]

We are not talking about the same thing here. John the Baptist was not divine but in the SoP we are told that he was molded by the Holy Spirit from the womb as far as his spiritual nature is concerned. In other words he was born again from the womb just like every child of Adam can be but the reality is that only very few human beings were born again from the womb on account of their parent's faith.

[wayfinder]

Exactly. He was born from eternity and became flesh we are born into eternity as spiritual devine beings (sons and daughters of God). We retain our cognizant being, but change into heavenly beings. It is clear from this understanding that Mary supplied only her womb and not her DNA, otherwise the Son of God could not have preexisted the womb of Mary.

[Gerr]

We are not talking about the same thing here. John the Baptist was not divine but in the SoP we are told that he was molded by the Holy Spirit from the womb as far as his spiritual nature is concerned. In other words he was born again from the womb just like every child of Adam can be but the reality is that only very few human beings were born again from the womb on account of their parent's faith.

G: So he never sinned and never had need for Christ's righteousness?

[skyblue888]

[skyblue888]

Exactly. He was born from eternity and became flesh we are born into eternity as spiritual devine beings (sons and daughters of God). We retain our cognizant being, but change into heavenly beings. It is clear from this understanding that Mary supplied only her womb and not her DNA, otherwise the Son of God could not have preexisted the womb of Mary.

wayfinder

_______________

We are not divine beings but we may become partakers of the divine nature, by grace.

Mary supplied DNA to Jesus as far as His human nature was concerned.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

p:Christ was born with a sinless, divine nature, which is drastically different than any other human being. We're told that Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His own sinless nature. Christ's nature was sinless and divine. Upon that nature He took "our sinful nature."

G: The Bible is also clear that He did not cling to the prerogatives of His divinity. And EGW agrees when she says: "He had a full consciousness of His divinity; but He had laid aside His royal crown and kingly robes, and had taken the form of a servant. One of the last acts of His life on earth was to gird Himself as a servant, and perform a servant's part." {CCh 299.4}

For Him to clothe His divinity with humanity, to me simply means that He veiled/hid His divinity. Not for one moment did He resort to His divine power to gain the victory, otherwise He would NOT have been a perfect example for us. He relied totally on His Father for power, just as we must rely totally on Him for power. This IS the faith of Jesus that we ALL CAN/MUST have. Total submission, total reliance, absolute trust in our Father, I believe, is the characteristic of Jesus that CAN/MUST be reproduced in the end-time people before He comes.

I agree with much of this. Christ could only be our example by overcoming by faith, not by using His own divine power, as we don't have our own divine power to use, and thus had He used His own divine power, He wouldn't have been an example. Also, if He had not assumed a sinful human nature, He could not have been an example.

[skyblue888]

I agree. He had a full consciousness of His divinity but it was always held back. He said, "I will trust in God."

Now the sinner may come to God trusting wholly in the merits of Christ's sacrifice and thus through the grace of the Holy Spirit he becomes a partaker of the divine nature that he may overcome as Jesus overcame.

"It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ's nature, a nature far above that which Adam and Eve forfeited by transgression." E.G. White, The Upward Look, p.18.

2 Peter 1:4.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Here is an interesting statement from Ellen White:

"All may now obtain holy hearts, but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh . The apostle Paul declares, 'I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing' (Rom. 7:18).'" (Ref unknown)

Here is what the above tells me:

a] As a believer I can have my mind transformed, i.e., I can have a mind in harmony with God's law, but simultaneously,

b] my human body is corrupted by the sinful nature.

Not if you're going by Ellen White's usage. "Corrupted" implies having sinned, according to EGW usage. She does speak of Christ's haven taken our fallen nature, degraded and defiled by sin, however.

Anyway, whatever you call it, "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" or "fallen nature, degraded and defiled by sin," the human nature that we are born with is what Christ assumed. We know this in several ways:

1.DA 49 tells us that like every child of Adam, Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity, the results of which is seen in His ancestors.

2.In MM 181, she tells us that Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His own sinless nature. "Our sinful nature" is our sinful nature.

3.She defended Waggoner and Jones' teaching on the subject when she preached with them in 1892.

4.She endorsed Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" which was about how Christ took sinful flesh.

5.She worked with Jones, Prescott, Waggoner and Haskell to counter the Holy Flesh teachings, which was done primarily by countering their teaching that Christ did not come in sinful flesh such as we have.

[wayfinder]

Exactly. He was born from eternity and became flesh we are born into eternity as spiritual devine beings (sons and daughters of God). We retain our cognizant being, but change into heavenly beings. It is clear from this understanding that Mary supplied only her womb and not her DNA, otherwise the Son of God could not have preexisted the womb of Mary.

wayfinder

_______________

We are not divine beings but we may become partakers of the divine nature, by grace.

Mary supplied DNA to Jesus as far as His human nature was concerned.

sky

Do you mean human substance or body of flesh? As Paul describes it:

Colossians 2:9 NAS

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Would not God be able to give Jesus flesh without Mary's DNA? God gave Adam flesh without any preexisting DNA. If we are all born with sin in the "flesh", then wouldn't Jesus be born with sin in the "flesh" from Mary's DNA or was Mary, as the Catholic's teach, without sin from birth?

Romans 7:18 NAS

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh ; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not

Galatians 5:17 NAS

For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Revelation 3:21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne

The only ones qualified to sit on the throne of God are the children of God, His offspring. When we are born by Spirit of God we are then offspring of God and heirs to the throne of God. Revelation 12:17 describes this reality.

Another question as to the nature of Christ is this. The One who was crucified and died on the cross, was He or was He not the same One who was resurrected three days later.

Romans 7:3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress ; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

If He was not the same One who went into the tomb, then what happened to that One? If He is the same One then...?

[John317]

Do you mean human substance or body of flesh? As Paul describes it:

Colossians 2:9 NAS

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Would not God be able to give Jesus flesh without Mary's DNA? God gave Adam flesh without any preexisting DNA.

Why would it be necessary for God to do this?

If Christ didn't have Mary's DNA, in what way was Christ a descendent of Adam, Abraham and David? The prophecy was that the Messiah would be a son of David. If Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a son of David, then He didn't fulfill the prophecy and thus Jesus would not be the Messiah to come.

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

If we are all born with sin in the "flesh", then wouldn't Jesus be born with sin in the "flesh" from Mary's DNA or was Mary, as the Catholic's teach, without sin from birth?

Mary was not without sin from birth, and yes, Jesus had Mary's DNA. The Roman Catholics are wrong on this. They make the claim that Mary was born immaculate because they believe God condemns humans for being born as descendents of Adam, but this is an error. Humans are not condemned merely for being born with fallen natures. Jesus condemned sin in flesh by showing that people in the flesh can obey God.

Romans 8:1-5

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. [3] For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, [4] in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [5] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

[pnattmbtc]

Would not God be able to give Jesus flesh without Mary's DNA? God gave Adam flesh without any preexisting DNA.

The Scripture says that the Holy Spirit would come upon the virgin Mary and she would conceive a child. Seem utterly impossible that this could happen without her DNA being involved. She conceived a child. That means her egg, and thus its DNA, was involved.

If the SOP counts, we're told that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity. From Scripture, Christ was of the seed of David, according to the flesh. That has to be from Mary, and must include her DNA, or the statement doesn't make sense.

If Paul doesn't count either, there's still Matthew and Luke, who give Christ's genealogy.

If Luke doesn't count, then there's John, which says that the word was made "flesh," which in the Greek is the word "sarx," which always refers to fallen, human flesh.

If John doesn't count, then I give up (for now).

[pnattmbtc]

I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I am just getting back to the PC since finishing the day's activities. Will probably post some stuff on my FB page later.

The issue here is the human perspective and the divine perspective. From a human perspective, newborns are innocent because they haven't sinned yet. However God operates outside the dimensions of time. God doesn't know the future because He can see into it. He is already there (so to speak). So when God looks at a baby He doesn't just see the baby at that point in time. God sees the baby's entire life. If that is not the case, He couldn't have died for our sins before we committed them. It is equally just for God to forgive us of our sins before we commit them as it is for God to condemn us of our sins before we commit them.

[pnattmbtc]

The main question is does an infant who dies at birth need a Savior?

I think the main question, in the context of this thread, is "Did Christ assume our sinful nature?" In regards to your question, if we say yes, a newborn needs a Savior, that begs the question, "Why?"

If the logic is:

1.Newborns need a Savior.

2.Therefore having sinful flesh necessitates needing a Savior.

3.Therefore Christ could not have had sinful flesh, because then He would have needed a Savior.

This logic has holes in it.

[John317]

The One who was crucified and died on the cross, was He or was He not the same One who was resurrected three days later.

Romans 7:3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress ; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

If He was not the same One who went into the tomb, then what happened to that One? If He is the same One then...?

Yes. of course, the One was who was crucified was the same Person who was resurrected three days later. It was Jesus of Nazareth, the same One who is spoken of in John 1: 1.

[pnattmbtc]

Exactly. He was born from eternity and became flesh we are born into eternity as spiritual devine beings (sons and daughters of God). We retain our cognizant being, but change into heavenly beings. It is clear from this understanding that Mary supplied only her womb and not her DNA, otherwise the Son of God could not have preexisted the womb of Mary.

This doesn't make sense. Christ *didn't* pre-exist the womb of Mary as a human being, but as a divine being. As a divine being, it wouldn't make any different if Mary provided DNA or not.

[Gerr]

G: So he never sinned and never had need for Christ's righteousness?

Gerry

____________________

Sky: Gerry! What do you mean? who ever suggested that he never sinned or that he never needed for Christ's righteousness?

The moment you are born from above you are clothed with the robe of Christ's righteousness.

sky

G: So then, if the Baptist who was born "born again" does not imply then that he did not sin? At what point did he have the need for Christ's righteousness? At conception? At birth?

[Sonny]

Anyway, whatever you call it, "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" or "fallen nature, degraded and defiled by sin," the human nature that we are born with is what Christ assumed.

If this is your view then the human side of Christ was born under the curse of the law (see Galatians 4:4). That's because having a sinful nature is sin in itself. If not then why,

1] Wasn't Lucifer allowed to develop his sinful nature in heaven?

2] Why can't we take our sinful nature to heaven at the second coming?

Jones seems to imply that Christ was born under the law - under the curse - under condemnation:

"God sent forth His son, made…under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." Galatians 4:4,5. By His coming He brought redemption to every soul who is under the law. But in order perfectly to bring that redemption to men under the law, He Himself must come to men, just where they are and as they are, under the law.

And this "was made."He did, for he was "made under the law;" He was made "guilty;" He was made condemned by the law; He was "made" as guilty as any man is guilty who is under the law. He was "made" under condemnation as fully as any man is under condemnation because of his violation of the law. He was "made" under the curse as completely as any man in the world has ever been or ever can be under the curse. For it is written: "He that is hanged ["on a tree"] is accursed of God." Deut. 21:23. (The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, chapter 5)

[Dr. Shane]

This is a bit off topic, but it doesn't make any sense to assert that Christ couldn't have died for our sins before we committed them if God wasn't already in the future, so to speak, which appears to be your contention. There's absolutely no support for this idea from Scripture.

The details of God's relationship with time are not revealed in the Scriptures. I simply try to put it in a way that one can grasp. Certainly, God is not traveling through time at the same rate we are.

Jesus not only died for my sins before I committed them, He took Elijah to heaven before He paid the debt for Elijah's sin. So there is issue regarding the dimension of time.