skyblue888 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 In other words, "He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh." These are the exact words as found in Bible Readings For The Home before the change was made during the SDA/Evangelical meetings in the 1950s. After the change, it read thus: "He lived a sinless life in the flesh." sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
miz3 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I think you're confused over the issue of what it means to be free to choose. It's true that we are either a slave of Satan or of God, but God frees us so that we can choose to serve Him freely. It's like the slave in Exodus 21: 5,6 who voluntarily chooses to serve His master. John317, I am afraid you are confused since we are slaves to the sinful nature it is impossible to not sin. When we are slaves to the Spirit Nature we obey God and His Commandments. In your present state John317 you have both natures in you. Each is fighting to gain full control. This is why you are sometimes righteous and sometimes disobedient. In this regard we talking about the Sanctification Process which is different from the Justification Work we are currently talking about.
Moderators John317 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: John317 I think you're confused over the issue of what it means to be free to choose. It's true that we are either a slave of Satan or of God, but God frees us so that we can choose to serve Him freely. It's like the slave in Exodus 21: 5,6 who voluntarily chooses to serve His master. John317, I am afraid you are confused since we are slaves to the sinful nature it is impossible to not sin. When we are slaves to the Spirit Nature we obey God and His Commandments. I agree with you that when we are slaves of Satan and of the flesh, it is impossible to stop sinning. But even slaves of Satan can call out to God for help and when they hear the gospel, they are enabled to choose Christ. When we are slaves of God and of righteousness, we can choose to reject God and return to our vomit. Many do. Being a slave of God doesn't mean we can't choose to turn our back on Christ. God guarantees us our freedom to choose. He takes no pleasure in a forced obedience. We are choosing every moment of every day. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: John317 I think you're confused over the issue of what it means to be free to choose. It's true that we are either a slave of Satan or of God, but God frees us so that we can choose to serve Him freely. It's like the slave in Exodus 21: 5,6 who voluntarily chooses to serve His master. In your present state John317 you have both natures in you. Each is fighting to gain full control. This is why you are sometimes righteous and sometimes disobedient. You talk, though, as if we are mere passive victims in this battle, but we are not. Every time we sin, we are choosing to do it. Not all sin is a deliberate, willful sin (as some have argued), yet no sin is ever committed without our choosing to do it. When you pray and ask God for forgiveness for sin, do you tell Him that you couldn't help sinning and that therefore you are not responsible for your sin? Taking reponsibility for our sins means that we confess that we are at fault. We don't blame someone else. We don't blame the Devil or our spouse or God, as Adam and Eve did. It seems to me that your argument would be to cast blame on God or on the Devil or on our nature-- on anyone or anything except ourselves. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Most folks who reject the idea that Christ's humanity, as the Son of Man, had within it our sinful nature do so because they say having a sinful nature is in and of itself sin - it's imperfection. I've not seen that argument here and I wonder why? We need to look at this. In fact I'm going to start this conversation off with an EGW quote (as soon as I find it).
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Okay, here it is: ST May 19, 1890 (also FW 88) "Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression."
Moderators John317 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 20, 2011 In other words, "He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh." These are the exact words as found in Bible Readings For The Home before the change was made during the SDA/Evangelical meetings in the 1950s. After the change, it read thus: "He lived a sinless life in the flesh." sky You are right in everything except the time when the change was made. The change came in 1949, and it was edited by D.E. Rebok, who was president of our SDA Theological Seminary. Rebok's change contradicts Ellen White's statement that Christ "took upon Him our sinful nature" (RH Dec. 15, 1896). Paul in Hebrews 2 writes that "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same... For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham" (2: 14, 16). John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Okay, here it is: ST May 19, 1890 (also FW 88) "Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression." I've got a better one: (Bible Commentary, vol.6, page 1,074) “As related to the first Adam, men receive from him [that is, from Adam] nothing but guilt and the sentence of death.”
miz3 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Christ took our sinful nature on Himself but NOT our sinfulness. 1. Not Biblical! 2. Not possible!
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 “As related to the first Adam, men receive from him [that is, from Adam] nothing but guilt and the sentence of death.” Notice Ellen White is not writing of our experience...that is, we sin and therefore we become guilty. No, she's stating that because of Adam we have "nothing but guilt". That sounds like original sin, right? We must be very careful at this point not to go beyond what Scripture says. We must not teach that in Adam all humanity also inherits his guilt. This is the heresy of “original sin” introduced by Augustine and adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Guilt, in a legal sense, always includes personal volition or responsibility, and God does not hold us personally responsible for something in which we had no choice. [JS]
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 1. Not Biblical! 2. Not possible! Didn't miz3 say? "God can do what He wants".... So it's possible and therefore it's Biblical.
skyblue888 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 In other words, "He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh." These are the exact words as found in Bible Readings For The Home Circle before the change was made during the SDA/Evangelical meetings in the 1950s. After the change, it read thus: "He lived a sinless life in the flesh." sky You are right in everything except the time when the change was made. The change came in 1949, and it was edited by D.E. Rebok, who was president of our SDA Theological Seminary. John317 ______________ As far as I know, Bible Readings For The Home Circle was revised in 1958. I have the 1915 edition rendition of that statement, p.173,174 and the 1958 rendition, p.143,144. I was aware that it was Rebok who made the change at the request of the G.C. leaders who were involved with the Evangelicals between 1955 and 1957. How could this change have been made in 1949? sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Now many SDA's have imbibed this teaching on the points of texts dealing with temptation, that it indicates Christ had a fallen nature, but that is not so. Mark ___________________________________ Mark, you are now teaching that Christ came in holy flesh!!! "The angels prostrated themselves before Him. They offered their lives. Jesus said to them that He would by His death save many, that the life of an angel cojuld not pay the debt. His life alone could be accepted as of His Father as a ransom for man. Jesus also told them that they would have a part to act, to be with Him and at different times strengthen Him; that He would take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be equal with theirs..." Early Writings, p.150. "Satan again rejoiced with his angels that he could, by causing man's fall, pull down the Son of God from His exalted position. He told his angels that when Jesus should take man's fallen nature, he could overpower Him and hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation." Ibid, 152. sky I am not teaching anything "Holy Flesh" or otherwise. I am pointing you to what the bible says. 1Jo 3:5 ...in him is no sin.
skyblue888 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 The 1915 edition of Bible Readings read thus: "On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits,--a sinful nature." "God in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist tempation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh." p.174. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 But the doctrine of antichrist is that Christ took upon His divine nature the sinless flesh of Adam, holy flesh. sky You have not been reading what I have said Sky... Christ came in Human Flesh, fallen human flesh. But He came with His Fathers Spiritual nature. Now compare that with what you have posted here. Hopefully you will see the difference.
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny “As related to the first Adam, men receive from him [that is, from Adam] nothing but guilt and the sentence of death.” Notice Ellen White is not writing of our experience...that is, we sin and therefore we become guilty. No, she's stating that because of Adam we have "nothing but guilt". That sounds like original sin, right? We must be very careful at this point not to go beyond what Scripture says. We must not teach that in Adam all humanity also inherits his guilt. This is the heresy of “original sin” introduced by Augustine and adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Guilt, in a legal sense, always includes personal volition or responsibility, and God does not hold us personally responsible for something in which we had no choice. [JS] Ellen White did not believe in original sin. So what are we guilty of in Adam even though we didn't have a personal choice in the matter? Well, example time: Let's say my name is "Adam". You need a ride home. I'm driving the car and I take a curse too fast. I kill both of us. Q1) Who made the mistake...who sinned? A1) I did. Q2) Is the passenger guilty of wrecking? A2) No. I'm the one who sinned. Q3) Does the passenger stand condemned because of my sin? A3). Yes, because he was with me he died.
skyblue888 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 The 1915 edition: "God in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist tempation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh." p.174. After the SDA/Evangelical meetings between 1955 and 1957: The 1958 edition reads thus: "God in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist tempation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in the flesh." p.144. Both expressions "in sinful flesh" were removed to please the Evangelicals. The difference is so obvious. This was repudiating one of our pillars in order for the denomination to be recognized as a Christian denomimation instead of a cult. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II So the context of the text is either from the incarnation or the cross. So the statement that "in him is no sin", has to be applied to the context already provided. When He was here on earth before His ascencion. Not an issue....Christ had a glorified human nature after the resurrection. He didn't directly go to heaven. You know that. So now it is referring to the point inbetween crucifixion and ascenscion? Those few hours?
miz3 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 You talk, though, as if we are mere passive victims in this battle, but we are not. Every time we sin, we are choosing to do it. Not all sin is a deliberate, willful sin (as some have argued), yet no sin is ever committed without our choosing to do it. When you pray and ask God for forgiveness for sin, do you tell Him that you couldn't help sinning and that therefore you are not responsible for your sin? Taking reponsibility for our sins means that we confess that we are at fault. We don't blame someone else. We don't blame the Devil or our spouse or God, as Adam and Eve did. It seems to me that your argument would be to cast blame on God or on the Devil or on our nature-- on anyone or anything except ourselves. 1. Every time you sin you are demonstrating your slavery to the sinful nature! Every time you are righteous you demonstrate that you are a slave to Christ. You can REJECT God's work in you and return to full slavery in the sinful nature. NO CHOICE! 2. Because of what Jesus Christ did on the Cross God sends His Spirit in us to begin to take control over of us. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." 1Corinthians 6:19-20. Thus God takes control over us. 3. Why do Christians ask forgiveness if they are controlled? Christians ask for forgiveness because God commanded us to! If it were not for the power of the Holy Spirit we would not be able to ask God for forgiveness. The Holy Spirit is the One who gives us the "desire" to ask God for forgiveness. Humans can REJECT that desire. However, if they do not reject that desire they will then ask for forgiveness. It is NOT A CHOICE, it is a command. We either obey the command BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT DRIVES US TO DO IT, or we REJECT THE COMMAND. We take responsibility because the Holy Spirit is there to: a. Inform us of what is sin! b. Drive us to victory over sin! Thus, we have no excuse for sinning. We cannot blame anyone but ourselves for ignoring God's Gift of the Holy Spirit to give us complete victory! This Principle is true for all of God's Commands. 4. We are now dealing in the Sanctification Process and not Justification which is a FINISHED WORK! Sanctification is a work in progress. 5. Justification which is a finished work is also not a matter choice. It is the GIFT OF GOD!
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I do not think is biblical is this idea that Christ had a sinful moral and spiritual nature. Mark ________________________________ On His divine side He was that "holy thing" but on His human side He was like us, sinful and yet He did no sin. sky He was without spot or blemish Sky. 1Jo 3:5 ...in him is no sin.
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II Remember, we are discussing whether Christ had sin in Him. That is the question. And the answer is plain. Now many SDA's have imbibed this teaching on the points of texts dealing with temptation, that it indicates Christ had a fallen nature, but that is not so. As Ellen White says, "He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." YI 12/20/1900 "He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man." (ST 5/29/1901) I do not disagree with any of the above John317. Christ came with a fallen "body". As Ellen White says, "He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." But He came with Gods Spiritual Nature. "He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man." I think many SDA's misunderstand what Ellen White is saying here. But she does not disagree with the bible. Her language however can be confusing, like Pauls can. She uses "sinful nature" to describe Christ's fallen human body at times. Then many do not notice she is talking about the "external" body of Christ, and instead think she is talking about Christs spiritual internal nature. Then a lot of confusion ensues. But if we go back to the bible, study it out there, then go to the SOP, there is no problem at all. Christ had no sin in Him. Mankind does. Mark :-)
skyblue888 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 I do not think is biblical is this idea that Christ had a sinful moral and spiritual nature. Mark ________________________________ On His divine side He was that "holy thing" but on His human side He was like us, sinful and yet He did no sin. sky He was without spot or blemish Sky. 1Jo 3:5 ...in him is no sin. Mark ________________________________ Mark, Do you really read what others are posting or perhaps you surmise as to what they are really saying? For the record. I will repeat what I have said. I believe Jesus was divine and human. On His divine side He was that "holy thing" and on His human side His nature was sinful and yet did no sin, therefore without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh. And so it may be with us. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 The 1915 edition of Bible Readings read thus: "On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits,--a sinful nature." "God in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist tempation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh." p.174. sky Why is Bible Readings an infallible source of doctrine Sky? I notice you and John317 have quoted it as an argument in your favour. By what rule do you come to the conclusion it is without error? Do not the Catholics do the same with the catechism? The bible is the rule of our faith, not Bible Readings for the home. What you have pointed to is an interesting historical marker on the understanding of Christs nature. But that does not make it "authoratitive". :-)
skyblue888 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 It is not about it being an infallible source of doctrine but about showing the difference between what was once taught and what is now taught since the change was made. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Recommended Posts