Christ's human nature...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I have no problem with the 1888 message, to which Sister White is addressing here.

But I am careful not to accept everything that Waggoner for instance said after that, as I believe he did end up accepting some things that Ellen White challenged, is that correct?

Her endorsements of Jones and Waggoner continued steadily (over 2,000 of them!) at least through 1896. I'm not aware of anything Waggoner wrote that Ellen White challenged. Some have accused Waggoner of pantheism, but I haven't seen any support for that. The arguments I've seen involve taking statements Waggoner made as literal which he obviously didn't intend as such. For example, Jesus spoke of waters of living water flowing from the belly. This obviously isn't literal. Waggoner used similar language.

Waggoner wrote some truly wonderful books. The Gospel in Creation. Bible Studies in the Book of Romans. The Everlasting Covenant. Three examples. He was a good writer.

So why these reports of his apostasy, have you looked into that?

[Twilight]

Further to a side conversation between myself, Pnat and John317 I have started this new thread:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/409102.html#Post409102

It deals with the source of Ellen Whites inspiration for the Desire of Ages for those interested.

Mark :-)

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

To say that He had sinful flesh because He was of the seed of David is an unwarranted stretch of the text considering that His father was the HS.

The text says that Christ was of the seed of David (literally "sperm") according to the flesh, so it doesn't look to be a stretch at all. Also, the Holy Spirit was not Christ's father. I'm sure this is a heresy with some fancy name.

Heresy? Then who is His Father? Hmmmmmmm.

1. He had no human father.

2. ESV | Lk 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

A fine point, but John 317 I believe is correct. The HS is the AGENT, but God the Father IS the Father.

3. ESV | Mt 317 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

4. ESV | Mt 26:42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

5. ESV | Jn 14:1 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

sky(quoting Jones)Thus in the flesh of Jesus Christ--not in Himself, but in His flesh--our flesh which He took in the human nature--there were just the same tendencies to sin that are in you and me.

G:If that is true, then He was neither conceived by the HS nor holy, and would have been born "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind," Eph 2:3.

1.That this would imply He wasn't conceived by the Holy Spirit is you simply assuming your own conclusion. There's nothing in inspiration that says that being conceived by the Holy Spirit means you can't have sinful flesh. Mary had sinful flesh. At the very least, Christ would have received sinful flesh from her.

And how can you conceive of the HOLY Spirit conceiving something sinful? No way! Jesus was called "that HOLY THING!"

Quote:

2.It makes much more sense that it is said Christ was referred to as "holy" because of who He was, not because of the type of flesh He had.

And who He was included what kind of flesh He had. Can't separate them.

Quote:

3.Christ took "our sinful nature" upon "His sinless nature." Christ's own nature was sinless (and divine), so it makes no sense to argue that by His taking our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature He would be "by nature, children of wrath." In our case, all we have is our own sinful nature, and humanity. Christ was sinless, and divine. That didn't change by His taking our sinful nature upon His sinless nature.

Those words in quotation marks are from EGW, but she ALSO makes it explicitly clear: "Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {5BC 1128.4}

Quote:

That's obviously NOT true. He was the "Son of God" from conception.

No, not at all. Christ was the "Son of God" from eternity.

But was He "Son of God" AS HUMAN BEFORE HIS CONCEPTION?We are discussing Christ's human nature.

Quote:

Quote:

And if He the propensities to evil like we have, He would have needed to be born again & needed a savior as well.

"He" didn't have propensities to evil. His flesh had the same inclinations that our flesh has.

How can you say on the one hand that He didn't have propensities to evil, and then on the very NEXT sentence contradict the first by saying "His flesh had the same inclinations that our flesh has?" Sounds like 2 + 2 & Obama is president? Are you saying "He" is different from His "flesh?"

Quote:

One problem in this discussion is a lack of accuracy.

If the incarnation is a mystery that the Bible cannot explain with "accuracy", how are we going to measure up to the accuracy that you are asking for?

[Gerr]

You are right about the HS being the agent.

Regarding your statement: "Jesus inherited the tendencies but not the sins themselves. Having the tendencies is not having the sins. It isn't a sin until we act on the tendency, and Jesus never acted on the tendency."

I ask you, at what point is a baby, a child, able to make rational decisions? If Jesus had inherited the propensity/inclination to sin, He would have sinned just like any baby/child before He could say "No" to the inclinations of the flesh.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

His body was like that of any Jew 2k yrs ago, but without the moral depravity. His body did not have the vitality of Adam's, the result of thousands of years of hereditary degeneracy, but in moral purity, He stood on the same level as Adam before he fell. That's how I see it.

There's nothing in inspiration which suggests that "moral depravity" comes from one's flesh. If this were true, then Elijah and Moses were morally depraved when they were translated, as will be the 144,000.

So you don't think glorification did not occur with Enoch, Moses, or Elijah during their translation?

Quote:

The SOP says that Christ accepted the workings of the great law of heredity, and that the results of this law are seen in His ancestors. What do you think this means? Do you think it means that if we look at Christ's ancestors we would see that they got tired?

I already told you that to me it means that Christ did not have the VITALITY that Adam had, but that He had the vitality of a body that was the victim of 4k+ years of inherited degeneracy, but had the MORAL PURITY that Adam was created with. If He had a flesh full of sin as we do, then the passage, "in Him is no sin" could not be true.

[Gerr]

How is human nature tempted?

James answers:

James 1:14-15

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. [15] Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

It's important to remember that Satan is able to plant thoughts into our minds, and this is what he did to Jesus. Such thoughts are not sin until we cherish them and act upon them.

What are your, or anyone else's, thoughts about this?

Did Adam have a "human nature?" He had to. After all, he was created human. The first Adam was tempted unlike the temptation James talks about. The human nature that Adam's descendants have does not even require the devil to commit sin. A cocaine or heroin baby does not require drugs to make them want it; it's in their make-up. Instinctively, they will go the wrong track. Had Jesus had the propensity/addiction craving to sin when He was born, He would have gone the wrong track and sinned BEFORE He had the ability to reason and say, "NO" to sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Some teach that Jesus had no human DNA, but I believe the evidence of the Bible and SOP is that Jesus inherited the same human nature that his ancestor David and his mother Mary had.

Really? I've never heard this idea, that Jesus had no human DNA. I don't know much about biology, but wouldn't that be impossible? I mean, don't all human cells have DNA in them? Or, more generally, living cells of any sort? Also, if a being didn't have any human DNA, would such a being even be human? Seems to me like no, that would be more like science fiction, like an alien of some sort masquerading as a human.

[pnattmbtc]

Baker letter:Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.

d:What in this quote do you think suggests that Jesus was born with inherent propensities (like Adam's posterity)of disobedience?

[pnattmbtc]

Heresy? Then who is His Father? Hmmmmmmm.

1. He had no human father.

2. ESV | Lk 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

A fine point, but John 317 I believe is correct. The HS is the AGENT, but God the Father IS the Father.

3. ESV | Mt 317 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

4. ESV | Mt 26:42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

5. ESV | Jn 14:1 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms

God the Father was the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God from eternity, not because of the Holy Spirit's actions.

[pnattmbtc]

And how can you conceive of the HOLY Spirit conceiving something sinful? No way! Jesus was called "that HOLY THING!"

[pnattmbtc]

If Jesus had inherited the propensity/inclination to sin, He would have sinned just like any baby/child before He could say "No" to the inclinations of the flesh.

[pnattmbtc]

G:His body was like that of any Jew 2k yrs ago, but without the moral depravity. His body did not have the vitality of Adam's, the result of thousands of years of hereditary degeneracy, but in moral purity, He stood on the same level as Adam before he fell. That's how I see it.

p:There's nothing in inspiration which suggests that "moral depravity" comes from one's flesh. If this were true, then Elijah and Moses were morally depraved when they were translated, as will be the 144,000.

G:So you don't think glorification did not occur with Enoch, Moses, or Elijah during their translation?

[Gerr]

Pnat: First comment is that this is from the infamous Baker letter. This was a private letter, so it's very difficult to interpret, since we don't know the circumstances behind her writing it. Her counsel was that we consider her published works for determining her views on such things, but, inevitably, when the subject of Christology comes up, out pops the Baker letter.

Did you know there was a private letter where she spoke of Christ's having "evil tendencies"? That's right, but that one usually doesn't get discussed.

Infamous? If the revelation came first that He did not have inherent propensity to sin, how could it be infamous to express the same thought in a private letter.

And could you please give the reference for this other private letter? And in what time relation did it have to the Baker letter?

Let's look at the MR reference again:

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}

And your comment: It looks like the last sentence is equivalent to her saying, "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but He didn't." That is, having an evil propensity would be equivalent to having sinned. So she's contrasting the fact that Adam, though created without any propensities of any kind, whether through the commission of sin, or by being born a member of the fallen race, sinned, whereas Jesus Christ, although born a member of the fallen race, never had an evil propensity, because He didn't sin.

How can you say that after she said this: " Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God."

It seems clear to me that what the statement is saying is that JUST AS the first Adam was "created pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him," SO IS THE SECOND ADAM.

And this: "He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience." Then this:"But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

And what this statement is telling is this: Adam's fallen posterity "was born with inherent propensities of disobedience." Then the big, "but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

Furthermore, "One moment" cannot be referring to propensity as a result of repeated sinful action. It can only mean that which was inherent.

[Gerr]

God the Father was the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God from eternity, not because of the Holy Spirit's actions.

Let me repeat, we are discussing here Christ's HUMAN nature. As a HUMAN being, He became "Son of God" at conception. He ALSO was declared son of God at His baptism, at His transfiguration, AND by virture of His resurrection.

[John317]

Some teach that Jesus had no human DNA, but I believe the evidence of the Bible and SOP is that Jesus inherited the same human nature that his ancestor David and his mother Mary had.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Really? I've never heard this idea, that Jesus had no human DNA.

Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and MM believe this and teach it on a radio program that is associated with the SDA church! But you're right that it's a rare belief.

The CAtholic church, however, does teach that although He had human DNA, it was not like yours or mine. According to their theology-- which has influenced a lot of Chrisitian understanding--- Christ could only be sinless if He was born differently than other humans.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

And how can you conceive of the HOLY Spirit conceiving something sinful? No way! Jesus was called "that HOLY THING!"

Pnat:

This is confusing things. The Holy Spirit did not conceive "something" sinful. Mary conceived, not the Holy Spirit. T conceived human being wasn't sinful, but the human being had sinful flesh. Having sinful flesh does not equate to being sinful. Also Jesus Christ was called "that holy thing" because of who He was, not because He had holy flesh.

But Mary did not conceive on her own!!! If the Holy Spirit who was also present at the creation of man and who was probably the vivifying agent could create a pure, sinless, Adam, there should be no reason for me to think that He would do anything less when the Son of God became the Son of Man.

The fact that Jesus was conceived through the power of the HS should be sufficient ALONE to convince all that Jesus was not altogether like us! No human can claim that!

He could NOT have been called, "that HOLY thing" if He had flesh that was full of sin. He came as a human, not as the pre-incarnate Christ.

Pnat: You have the idea that being holy or not depends upon the flesh you have. Why do you have this idea? It seems to me inspiration teaches that Christ took our sinful nature, yet we know He was holy, so there doesn't seem to be anything that would keep this from being the case. Another was of seeing that it's possible to be holy, yet have sinful flesh, is by the fact that we have sinful flesh, yet are commanded to be holy.

And how do we become holy or accounted holy? Is it not because of the untainted holiness/righteousness of Someone else?

Pnat: As others have been explaining, having propensities to evil has to do with committing sin, not with the flesh one has. We need not retain such propensities. If these had to do with our flesh, we would have to retain them.

I have already addressed this issue. In the context of the EGW quotes that have been brought forward, it was obvious to me that she was using propensity in two senses: 1) inherent inclination, since she used the word "inherent" 2) propensity as a result of repeated action as John pointed out.

I'll have to go back to the original post to see what question you had that I did not address.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

If Jesus had inherited the propensity/inclination to sin, He would have sinned just like any baby/child before He could say "No" to the inclinations of the flesh.

Pnat:

According to the SOP, it is a mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ could be tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Had Christ taken a sinless nature, or holy flesh, what would the mystery be?

So what you're saying is that, had Jesus had the nature of Adam BEFORE he sinned, it would have been no mystery that He did not sin? What you are telling me then is that there is no mystery about iniquity. There is no mystery that pure, sinless, Adam sinned. It was a natural occurrence. There is no mystery that the covering cherub, the one created as close to God as possible, became the originator of sin? No mystery?

Jones may have had a lot of truth in his writings, but I don't view him as an authority.

[Gerr]

Biologically speaking, it is impossible for ANY living thing to exist without DNA. Nor is it possible for humans to have only 23 chromosomes. Jesus had flesh, blood, & bones. These can function ONLY through DNA direction. Presumably only 23 of His came from human source and the other 23 must have been of Divine origin, the same One that gave Adam untainted DNA in the beginning. This ALONE should tell us that Jesus was not completely like us!

[John317]

... This ALONE should tell us that Jesus was not completely like us!

Yes, I'm not claiming that Jesus was exactly like us. When He was born, He was already born of the Holy Spirit and He was God and He knew it. Also, He never acted upon temptations and we have acted upon our temptations many times.

The issue comes down to the question of whether Jesus was without sin because of the way He was born (with a sinless nature) or whether it was because of the Holy Spirit in His life (with a fallen nature).

[Gerr]

Pnat: I guess you didn't understand the point. I'll try to be clearer.

If simply having fallen flesh means that one is morally depraved, then at the moment Elijah and Moses were translated (at which point they still had sinful flesh), they would be, by our definition, "morally depraved." I'm saying this doesn't make sense. The fact that they were translated means they were NOT morally depraved, which means that moral depravity is not dependent upon the flesh that one has.

:There's nothing in inspiration which suggests that "moral depravity" comes from one's flesh. If this were true, then Elijah and Moses were morally depraved when they were translated, as will be the 144,000.

What you are telling me is that it is possible to get clean, pure, water from a tainted spring? Impossible! Jesus Himself said, ESV | Jn 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." That's why He HAD TO BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT FROM CONCEPTION. Adam became depraved because he chose to. We ARE depraved not only because we choose to but also because we ARE BORN depraved. That's why we need to be born again! If our present bodies can be modified to become holy, then then there would be no need for the new birth.

As for Moses, Elijah, and Enoch, they would have had to be glorified to be translated. They shed their sinful flesh during translation.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

... This ALONE should tell us that Jesus was not completely like us!

Yes, I'm not claiming that Jesus was exactly like us. When He was born, He was already born of the Holy Spirit and He was God and He knew it. Also, He never acted upon temptations and we have acted upon our temptations many times.

It sounds to me like the main difference is not just that He was born of the Spirit, it was because He did not act on His temptations. Right? But what about BEFORE He knew from right and wrong? Leave a baby alone and he/she WILL sin! Instinctively! Had Jesus had inherent propensity to do wrong, He would have done so BEFORE He knew right from wrong.

Quote:

The issue comes down to the question of whether Jesus was without sin and whether He obeyed God because of the way He was born (with a sinless nature) or whether it was because of the Holy Spirit in His life (with a fallen nature).

Jesus obeyed God because He CHOSE to obey God, not because He had untainted DNA. Adam disobeyed God because he CHOSE to disobey God, not because of the pure untainted flesh he had.

Fallen man can choose to do good but he cannot do good.

Born again man can choose to do good and with the Spirit do good.

Jesus, born of the Spirit but with a body weakened by 4k+ years of degenerate heredity, could choose to do good and with the Spirit's power do good.

[Gerr]

Quote:

p:The SOP says that Christ accepted the workings of the great law of heredity, and that the results of this law are seen in His ancestors. What do you think this means? Do you think it means that if we look at Christ's ancestors we would see that they got tired?

G:I already told you that to me it means that Christ did not have the VITALITY that Adam had, but that He had the vitality of a body that was the victim of 4k+ years of inherited degeneracy, but had the MORAL PURITY that Adam was created with.

I know what you said, but I'm asking you about what Ellen White said here. She said that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity, and that the results of this law are seen in his ancestors. I'm asking you what you think the results which are seen in his ancestors are. What results?

I thought I made it clear, so let me try again. What Christ accepted was the result of the working of the great law of heredity that resulted in a body 4k+ yrs removed from the tree of life, i.e. lesser in stature, and more importantly, much less vitality. But He had the moral purity of Adam, not just because He did not commit a sin, but also that He did NOT have inherent propensity for sin.

Quote:

If He had a flesh full of sin as we do, then the passage, "in Him is no sin" could not be true.

Pnat:

Sure it could. He never sinned. That's what the passage means. This is how all our pioneers understood this.

That cannot be! To be tainted with an inherent propensity for sin means that the seed for sinning is there already. The first Adam was created pure & sinless. So was the Second Adam.

[doug yowell]

I don't know the name "Jan."

I went to school for a year with Jan Jacques.She a senior, I a sophmore.Didn't know her well just that my girlfriends were friends with her.She was involved with a biker while still at Adventist academy. I did hear her say that she was a great granddaughter of EGW. She said so rather apologetically and seemed to be ashamed of the fact.I guess being cool was to be her claim to fame. I've always wondered what happened to her.

[John317]

Yes, several of Ellen White's great-grandchildren are either non-SDA today or even non-Christian. I heard of one who was the founder of a well-known pizza chain who came back to Christ and the SDA church a few years ago. It just goes to show that no one is saved or has a special link to God because of natural blood relationship-- it is all about faith-relationship in the blood of Christ.

If she was a great-granddaughter and her last name was Jacques, it means she was probably the daughter of Grace and John Jacques.

But what year was that? It seems to me the Jacques would have had children in the 1930s because Grace was born about 1900. I think it's more likely that this Jan was a great-great-granddaughter of Mrs. White.