Christ's human nature...

[doug yowell]

Apparently Baker was teaching that Christ sinned and obtained evil propensities in that way. But no one knows for sure what Baker was teaching, which is why the counsel to look at her public works makes sense.

This is not a well reasoned conclusion,pnatt.If Baker was teaching that Christ had sinned then EGW's response was bland and unimpassioned. Teaching that Christ sinned at any point would have been regarded as the ultimate heresy. Highly unlikely that her comments on propensity would have been an effective check on teaching that Jesus had actually sinned.

[mrsducky]

How does all this fit with what Jesus said about Himself? "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." John 14:30

What about His total dependence on His Father? The fact that he had such an awful list of problems in His heredity says there is hope for all!

[Gerr]

This issue is so simply and easy to understand, I don't know why Adventists argue among themselves about it. Jesus was fully man (with a sinful nature) and fully God (with a divine nature). Why is that so hard to understand?

Adam was also FULLY a man, with a pure sinless HUMAN nature. He could be tempted. Lucifer was a being created as close to God Himself could be, yet he was not above sinning.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Gerr]

How does all this fit with what Jesus said about Himself? "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." John 14:30

What about His total dependence on His Father? The fact that he had such an awful list of problems in His heredity says there is hope for all!

When Jesus was a baby, or toddler, had Satan had come to Him then, if His statement was true, it could be said that he (Satan) had nothing in Him (Christ). Had He been infected with the virus of sin (inherent propensity/inclination for sin), His statement would not have been true, because Satan would have had SOMETHING in Him.

[pnattmbtc]

I just saw where this was posted and attributed to A.T. Jones. That's why I couldn't find it in my EGW disc. Sorry, but I don't use Jones for authority.

I think this is a wrong way of thinking about this. That is, the statement "I don't use Jones for authority." Authority comes from truth; or, perhaps, better said, the power behind authority is truth. So it's not a question of our "using" some person as an authority, but whether the given person said the truth. And if we accept the endorsements of Ellen White, there is no question that both Jones and Waggoner did. They both were commissioned from God with a message to our church, and its inconceivable that God was send us a message of error.

Christ's human nature was central to their message, and they both recognized this. Jones identified it as central to salvation.

However, the truth of what Jones wrote can be seen apart from considering a third-party endorsement. Simply read what he wrote, and look at the arguments, all based 100% on Scripture, and what he says can be easily seen to be truth.

[Woody]

Quote:

Sorry, but I don't use Jones for authority.

That would be a correct statement Gerry. We should not use ANY writer as an authority. The only authority for Christians should be The Holy Bible.

Our prophet herself stated this. That even her own writings should be compared to scripture to verify if she is correct or not.

So of course Jones would be of no authority.

I am no authority.

The Word of God is my authority. What all others say ... needs to be verified by scripture.

[pnattmbtc]

Pnat:You're missing the point, Gerry. Here's the quote again:

G:You don't think these are the result of degenerating heredity?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnat: This looks to be saying that Christ could have sinned; He could have fallen, but He didn't. It's contrasting that Adam could sin, and did, with the fact that Christ could have sinned, but didn't. Also, she writes that "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." As I've explained to Gerry, it doesn't make sense to say this in regards to that which comes from DNA. She says we need not retain any sinful propensities. If these propensities were dealing with DNA, we would have to retain them

Gerry:Did you not notice my post where I said that it is apparent that EGW was using propensity in the sense of 1) inherent - being born with it as a result of Adam's sin, and 2) acquired - the result of practised sinning? The former you cannot escape from until glorification when we receive a new body, and the latter are actions that pass through the will, and therefore by grace do not have to be retained?

Pnat: This is making the same point as the paragraph a few paragraphs earlier (the one quoted above). The first Adam fell, but the second Adam didn't. You can see how the paragraph contrasts Adam's actions with Christ's.

Again, you keep seeing ONLY the contrast and fail to see the parallel comparison. Here it is 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. ".

That's the parallel comparison - the first Adam was created pure & sinless, without a taint of sin. The Second Adam did not have any propensity to sin just LIKE the first Adam. TWO ADAMS COMPARED. Now for the contrast: "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."

I don't know what you have against parsing what she said when you were trying to do the same with what he said? Furthermore, don't we do the same thing with the Bible?

I disagree with your interpretation of the Baker letter. I think Ralph Larson's makes more sense. It would take a lot of work to go through this, and I have grave doubts that the effort would be worth it, but if you would like to start a thread (or someone else) discussing the Baker letter, I'd be willing to do so. Until that happens, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

1.According to EGW's counsel, if we wish to know her views, we should consider her *published* works. This is wise counsel, because we don't know the circumstances behind her private letters. For example, everybody agrees that EGW was correcting Baker in some way, but nobody knows what Baker was teaching. We can only guess based on EGW's letter to him. But there are many different theories regarding this, even amongst those who agree concerning EGW's views. If we knew what Baker was teaching, it would be easy to interpret her private letter.

2.There's a private letter where Ellen White says that Christ had "evil tendencies." We could just as easily use that as the cornerstone of what Ellen White taught as the Baker letter. But this wouldn't be following her counsel. The more we discuss the Baker letter, the more we disregard her wishes on how we should go about understanding her views.

3.The book "The Desire of Ages" was written for the express purpose of setting forth her views regarding Jesus Christ. That should be our starting point for understanding her Christology. It's an established principle that in seeking to determine an author's view, one should start with books dealing directly with the subject, then articles, then published works dealing with the subject indirectly, with private letters being way down at the bottom of the list, and always subject to what had been published. When an author publishes a work, the author is considering how that work will be understood by that public audience. Whereas in writing a private letter, the author is concerned that only that person understand what's being written.

[pnattmbtc]

Pnat: When the Holy Flesh controversy was just starting, S. N. Haskell communicated with her, saying:

G:Why are you even bringing up the holy flesh controversy? Is it to discredit the notion that Jesus had a "holy" body from the moment of conception with guilt by association?

[pnattmbtc]

Scripture clearly states that He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. He was called "that holy thing" because the Spirit by whom He was conceived is HOLY.

No, Gerry. Christ is not called "that holy thing" because the Holy Spirit is holy, but because Christ is holy! Your idea doesn't make sense, because if Christ were holy because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that He wasn't holy because He was conceived by Mary. He'd be half holy and half not.

This is the same problem as thinking that half of the chromosomes that the Holy Spirit provided were of the "sinless flesh" variety. You'd still have the other half from Mary that weren't. So Christ wouldn't have the nature of Adam before the fall, but a mixed nature, half like Adam before the fall, and half not.

No, Christ isn't called holy because of the Holy Spirit, or because of the flesh He had, but because He was holy! He was, and is, the Holy One of Israel.

[skyblue888]

Scripture clearly states that He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. He was called "that holy thing" because the Spirit by whom He was conceived is HOLY.

No, Gerry. Christ is not called "that holy thing" because the Holy Spirit is holy, but because Christ is holy! Your idea doesn't make sense, because if Christ were holy because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that He wasn't holy because He was conceived by Mary. He'd be half holy and half not.

This is the same problem as thinking that half of the chromosomes that the Holy Spirit provided were of the "sinless flesh" variety. You'd still have the other half from Mary that weren't. So Christ wouldn't have the nature of Adam before the fall, but a mixed nature, half like Adam before the fall, and half not.

No, Christ isn't called holy because of the Holy Spirit, or because of the flesh He had, but because He was holy! He was, and is, the Holy One of Israel.

pnatt

___________

Very well put, pnatt.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnat quoting DA: " Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ he lived a sinless life."

G:If EGW meant to say that Christ had sinful flesh, why did she quote Paul who used "likeness" meaning - resemblance, similitude?

Gerry, please be more careful regarding your use of color. You had this question uncolored, which, in your color scheme, would make it me saying this, instead of you. You might consider including your name before quotes, and similarly for the ones you are posting, because the colors don't come along when one copies and pastes (I realize it's redundant for the initial post).

Ellen White used a variety of expressions. She wrote that Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature. She didn't write, "a nature like our sinful nature" but simply "our sinful nature," so her meaning is clear: Christ assumed our sinful nature.

Quote:

One point which I have brought out at least on two occasions but have not seen you comment on it is these:

This is fine; if I miss a point, please do what you're doing here, and raise it again.

Quote:

If Jesus had born with inherent propensity/inclination for sin

I haven't said this. I've said that Christ had the same flesh that we have. Is this what you mean?

Quote:

, why then did He not sin before He is ABLE to say "No" to sin?

Ellen White says this is a mystery not explained to mortals. I did address this point in speaking of the "mystery of godliness". I quoted a sermon from A. T. Jones which discussed this. I made the point that if Christ had sinless flesh, there would be no mystery.

Quote:

Every descendant of Adam is born SELFISH, and sinned/sins before they know right from wrong. Was Jesus born selfish?

No. Christ took "our sinful nature" upon "His sinless nature." Christ was sinless, divine, and, of course, unselfish. This is what He was by nature, inherently, and was born. Upon Christ's own sinless, divine, nature He took our human, sinful nature.

We need to bear in mind that Christ was not only human. Christ was 100% divine and 100% human.

Quote:

Every descendant of Adam were/are born "children of wrath." Was Jesus born a child of wrath?

On what basis do you assert that we are born "children of wrath"?

Quote:

Pnat quoting EGW: "Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man’s nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man’s behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature." {5BC 1082.1}

G:Was Adam a man? Was he tempted? Did he fall? It is totally erroneous to claim that if one had the pre-fallen nature of Adam that he/she would/could not be tempted or fall!!! Adam did fall. Even the covering cherub, Lucifer, fell!!!

I'd suggest you re-read the quote. You don't appear to have understood the argument that EGW was addressing.

The point is that the pre-lapsarians who heard Ellen White, Jones and Waggoner preach about Christ's having assumed our sinful nature asked Ellen White questions, making the customary pre-lapsarian arguments. She responded with a customary post-lapsarian argument. She was preaching with post-lapsarians, and defended the post-lapsarian teachings with post-lapsarian arguments. The only conclusion possible: She was post-lapsarian!

[pnattmbtc]

p: As I've explained to Gerry, it doesn't make sense to say this in regards to that which comes from DNA. She says we need not retain any sinful propensities. If these propensities were dealing with DNA, we would have to retain

d:DNA.SHMEENA,Mrs. White does not address the DNA factor and I don't think Gerry rests his case on it either.

[pnattmbtc]

Pnat: There was a movement around the turn of the 20th century that argued like this:

1.Christ did not have sinful flesh (<== typical pre-lapsarian position).

2.To be ready for translation, we need to be like Christ, and also not have sinful flesh.

G:Actually, the perfectionists argument that I have come across with is that:

Since Jesus had a sinful flesh like ours with all its inclinations/propensities, there is no reason for us not be able to achieve the sort of perfection He achieved before Jesus comes. And that's what many believe that those who will be translated alive when Jesus comes will have achieved, specifically the 144,000.

Why are you making this point? (that is, how does this tie into this discussion) What do you mean by "perfectionist"?

[pnattmbtc]

p:Apparently Baker was teaching that Christ sinned and obtained evil propensities in that way. But no one knows for sure what Baker was teaching, which is why the counsel to look at her public works makes sense.

d:This is not a well reasoned conclusion,pnatt.

[doug yowell]

She simply states that Christ "not for one moment"had an evil propensity in Him. This I take to simply mean that at birth,at the ages of 2,5,8,11,and 33(not for one moment) He had no such propensity.Nobody talks that way, as I pointed out. If Christ had been born left handed, nobody would say, "not for one moment was Christ right-handed" ]meaning that Christ wasn't right-handed eyes at the ages of 2,5,8,11, or 33. One would simply say "Christ was left handed," or, perhaps, "Christ was born left-handed."

But this is the point.

I'm not following your reasoning here. Maybe it's my fault.But if some are arguing that Christ was born right handed then it would be natural that if He was actually born left handed that someone would say that He was never born right handed,right? That's what EGW is writing to correct, the idea that Christ was BORN with a propensity to disobedience,not that He was born WITH a propensity to disobedience but simply never acted on it! The context of the subject is what determines the point at which she injects propensities.She's specifically speaking about the nature of Jesus birth not the following circumstances of His life.No honest believing Christian would ever claim that Jesus EVER sinned,propensity towards or not.Gerry and I continue to reason that a person's nature has no bearance on whether or not they are either subject to the same temptations as everyone else ("there is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man...")or insulated from the possibility of succumbing to those common temptations as evidenced by Lucifer and Adam#1.Do you agree with this conclusion?

[pnattmbtc]

d:She simply states that Christ "not for one moment"had an evil propensity in Him. This I take to simply mean that at birth,at the ages of 2,5,8,11,and 33(not for one moment) He had no such propensity.

p:Nobody talks that way, as I pointed out. If Christ had been born left handed, nobody would say, "not for one moment was Christ right-handed" ]meaning that Christ wasn't right-handed eyes at the ages of 2,5,8,11, or 33. One would simply say "Christ was left handed," or, perhaps, "Christ was born left-handed."

But this is the point.

d:I'm not following your reasoning here. Maybe it's my fault.But if some are arguing that Christ was born right handed then it would be natural that if He was actually born left handed that someone would say that He was never born right handed,right?

[doug yowell]

You write that it has "no bearance" on whether they are subject to the same temptations. That would imply that having a sinful nature makes NO temptations possible than not having a sinful nature.

I'm not sure if you left something out of this sentence. I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say. Can you repeat it?

[Gerr]

Pnat: I think this is a wrong way of thinking about this. That is, the statement "I don't use Jones for authority." Authority comes from truth; or, perhaps, better said, the power behind authority is truth.

Gerry: Wrong? What happened to Sola Scriptura?

Pnat: However, the truth of what Jones wrote can be seen apart from considering a third-party endorsement. Simply read what he wrote, and look at the arguments, all based 100% on Scripture, and what he says can be easily seen to be truth.

Gerry: Easily? Then why is there not unanimity? I could say the same thing to what I am presenting. To me it is very obvious just from Lk 1:35 & Rom 8:3 that He was not EXACTLY just like us! NO HUMAN being could claim that.

[Gerr]

G:I said that because of degenerating heredity His vitality was not like that of Adam. What does this mean? Adam was probably over 7 or 10 ft tall. He (Jesus) was probably <6 ft tall. Adam's IQ was probably a match for any computer we have today, therefore beyond measure. Christ's IQ? 120? 130? Adam lived to 930 yrs. Had Jesus lived a normal lifespan, perhaps 70, or by reason of strength 80, Ps 90:10. Adam did not know sickness. Christ's body would have been more susceptible to disease. We don't have a record of Him getting sick. Maybe he followed the Health Message? Jesus got a lot more tired & more quickly than Adam; more hungry & thirsty than Adam. Required more sleep than Adam. More susceptible to the effects of intemperance, abuse, addiction, etc. etc..

Pnat: Nobody cares about any of this. What I mean by this is that this is well known, but not important; that is, when the fact of Christ's taking "sinful flesh" is considered, nobody, either then or now, has this in mind, except incidentally. That is, it is not today, nor ever has been, the core issue.

Gerry: I am truly amazed that you would make a statement like that!!! NOT IMPORTANT? Truly amazing!!! 930 vs. 70-80 yrs? IQ 1000+ vs 120-130? Perfect health vs imperfect health? Nearly tireless vs easily tired? Truly amazing.

Pnat: What people see as the results are the vices and sins of Christ's ancestors, and these were passed to Christ through their DNA, through "the working of the great law of heredity" which Christ accepted, "like every other child of Adam.;

Because He had murderers, prostitutes, and adulterers in His family tree that therefore He had the tendency/inclination to commit murder, adultery, and prostitution? Do you think that it ever crossed Christ's mind to murder somebody? Crossed His mind to fornicate? Prostitute Himself? I have pointed this out previously - did Cain commit murder because He had murderous parents? Did Noah get drunk because he had drunken parents? Had there been another couple in Eden, the temptation to commit adultery would have been a possibility.

I said this before and I'll say it again to make a point. It is totally erroneous to say or even think that Jesus would have been above temptation or sinning if He had the sinless nature of Adam. Adam was created pure & sinless. He was tempted and sinned. Lucifer, even a higher perfect being sinned.

Here is another EGW quote: "Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test. For our sake He exercised a self-control stronger than hunger or death.--The Desire of Ages, p. 117.

What nature? Man's nature. Since He took Adam's position, then He must had had the same innocence as Adam but with a body that is the product of 4k yrs of degenerating human heredity.

Human nature with all its liabilities? What liability is she talking about? She makes it clear in the next sentence that it was the POSSIBILITY of yielding to temptation just like Adam did.

[Gerr]

Pnat: I disagree with your interpretation of the Baker letter. I think Ralph Larson's makes more sense. It would take a lot of work to go through this, and I have grave doubts that the effort would be worth it, but if you would like to start a thread (or someone else) discussing the Baker letter, I'd be willing to do so. Until that happens, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Gerry: Then we agree to disagree. Let others make their own analysis and come to their own conclusion.

Pnat: 1.According to EGW's counsel, if we wish to know her views, we should consider her *published* works. This is wise counsel, because we don't know the circumstances behind her private letters. For example, everybody agrees that EGW was correcting Baker in some way, but nobody knows what Baker was teaching. We can only guess based on EGW's letter to him. But there are many different theories regarding this, even amongst those who agree concerning EGW's views. If we knew what Baker was teaching, it would be easy to interpret her private letter.

Gerry: I try to read as much of what she has said on this subject as I can. So far, I have not seen anything she wrote that would make me change my mind.

Pnat: 2.There's a private letter where Ellen White says that Christ had "evil tendencies." We could just as easily use that as the cornerstone of what Ellen White taught as the Baker letter. But this wouldn't be following her counsel. The more we discuss the Baker letter, the more we disregard her wishes on how we should go about understanding her views.

I have asked you for the reference for this letter before, but you seemed not to have understood what I was talking about. So I am asking for the reference where this letter is found. As far as I know, every published writing of EGW is supposed to be in the disc I have. The pattern I see in Scripture is that when a prophet makes a significant error, God makes a correction. Example: Nathan telling David he could build the temple, and Paul correcting the Thessalonian's misunderstanding Paul's statement in his first letter that Christ may be coming in their lifetime.

[Gerr]

Pnat: When the Holy Flesh controversy was just starting, S. N. Haskell communicated with her, saying:

G:Why are you even bringing up the holy flesh controversy? Is it to discredit the notion that Jesus had a "holy" body from the moment of conception with guilt by association?

No, it's for the reasons I pointed out. The Holy Flesh theology goes like this:

1.Christ did not have sinful flesh.

2.To be ready for heaven, we need to overcome sin, like Christ did.

3.Therefore we need to have the same flesh that Christ had.

Gerry:#2&3 following #1 don't make sense. If Christ did NOT have sinful flesh, HOW could ANYONE expect man with SINFUL FLESH to achieve perfection AS Jesus did? There is NO logic or justice to that kind of expectation. In my experience, those who believe that Jesus came in sinful flesh with all its sinful propensities are the ones who teach that since Jesus did it with his sinful flesh, sinful man with all his inherent propensities should be able to do the same. As for #3, Scripture is explicitly clear that we acquire glorified flesh only at the Second Coming of our Lord. But as far as overcoming sin is concerned, Jesus overcme sin by total dependence on His Father & through the power of the HS. We overcome sin in the same manner, by dwelling in Him & through the power of the HS.

Pnat: Now if how you were thinking were true, the way this heresy would have been attacked is like this:

"Yes, Christ did have holy flesh, but we won't have holy flesh until translation."

But that's not how their theology was attacked. Their theology was attacked at the root, attacking the idea that Christ did not have sinful flesh.

Gerry: Red herring. I am making no such arguments. Besides, I had already pointed out that none acquires a glorified body until the parousia.

Pnat: It's simply not possible that Ellen White wasn't a post-lapsarian, when one considers the historical facts.

I simply don't think so. I used to believe Jesus was born with sinful flesh with all its evil propensities, but after studying some more, I changed my mind.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Scripture clearly states that He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. He was called "that holy thing" because the Spirit by whom He was conceived is HOLY.

Pnat: No, Gerry. Christ is not called "that holy thing" because the Holy Spirit is holy, but because Christ is holy! Your idea doesn't make sense, because if Christ were holy because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that He wasn't holy because He was conceived by Mary. He'd be half holy and half not.

Gerry: You are talking about His pre-incarnate existence. He laid that aside. Jesus, as man, had a beginning. His beginning as human was at conception, conceived through the power of the HS. And He was called, "that holy thing" not because of His prior existence, but because of His origin at conception. Was He conceived in sin like David? Child of wrath at birth like everyone of us? I don't think so.

Pnat: This is the same problem as thinking that half of the chromosomes that the Holy Spirit provided were of the "sinless flesh" variety. You'd still have the other half from Mary that weren't. So Christ wouldn't have the nature of Adam before the fall, but a mixed nature, half like Adam before the fall, and half not.

Gerry: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DNA bit is purely speculative on my part. We have no Bible evidence for it. I just have to think that the HS would have had to supply the other 23 to make a viable organism. And I can't conceive of the HS supplying something infected with the virus of sin.

[Gerr]

Quote:Gerry:

Every descendant of Adam is born SELFISH, and sinned/sins before they know right from wrong. Was Jesus born selfish?

Pnat: No. Christ took "our sinful nature" upon "His sinless nature." Christ was sinless, divine, and, of course, unselfish. This is what He was by nature, inherently, and was born. Upon Christ's own sinless, divine, nature He took our human, sinful nature.

Gerry: If Christ was NOT born SELFISH, then He did NOT have the inherent propensity that every descendant of Adam had/has. You simply cannot claim that He was born with all the evil propensities of fallen man and then say He wasn't born selfish. Selfishness is at the core of every evil inherited propensity. That's you 2+2 & President Obama argument.

Pnat: 'd suggest you re-read the quote. You don't appear to have understood the argument that EGW was addressing.

Gerry: It seems to me that the only way that I understand EGW's statement to you is for me to agree with your interpretation!

[Gerr]

Pnat: There was a movement around the turn of the 20th century that argued like this:

1.Christ did not have sinful flesh (<== typical pre-lapsarian position).

2.To be ready for translation, we need to be like Christ, and also not have sinful flesh.

G:Actually, the perfectionists argument that I have come across with is that:

Since Jesus had a sinful flesh like ours with all its inclinations/propensities, there is no reason for us not be able to achieve the sort of perfection He achieved before Jesus comes. And that's what many believe that those who will be translated alive when Jesus comes will have achieved, specifically the 144,000.

Why are you making this point? (that is, how does this tie into this discussion) What do you mean by "perfectionist"?

You brought up the Holy Flesh movement that believed that they can become as perfect as Christ & acquire holy flesh before translation. I am merely stating that in my experience, it is those that believe that Jesus had a sinful nature with ALL its evil propensities that believe that since He was able to achieve what He achieved with that kind of heredity/flesh, that there is no reason why we couldn't do the same. I held that view in the 1970's. It didn't take me long to realize the futility.

By perfectionist, I mean that we can become as perfect as Christ not through justification, but by our sanctified living.