Moderators John317 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 20, 2011 Thus God takes control over us. God doesn't take away your ability to choose Him or choose to disobey Him. In fact, Christ's death on the cross guarantees us the ability to choose. Originally Posted By: miz3 3. Why do Christians ask forgiveness if they are controlled? Christians ask for forgiveness because God commanded us to! And why does God tell us to repent and confess our sins, asking for forgiveness? Being controlled by the Spirit is not the same as saying we have no choice in whom we serve. Everyone is either controlled by Satan or by the Holy Spirit. But being controlled by the Spirit gives us freedom to choose. In fact, it is the only way to have genuine liberty. Of course the Holy Spirit is the One who inspires us with the desire for God, but people have the ability to resist that desire and to turn against God. Rev. 3: 20 says Christ stands at the door of our heart knocking. He won't come in without our opening the door. Christ won't open the door Himself. We have to do that. God gives us the desire and the stength to open the door, but we have to make the decision to listen to the knocking and to turn the knob. God won't do that part for us. 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 ....Christ had no sin in Him. Mankind does. I have never argued that Christ had sin in Him, and I doubt anyone else has made that argument. Christ assumed a fallen nature-- that is, a sinful nature. These are one and the same. But they are different from sinfulness, which Christ never had. So, again, yes, Christ had no sin in Him. Christ had a fallen nature, but not a FALLING nature. Do you agree with the statement I quoted from the 1914 edition of Bible Readings? 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.
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 Define "human side" and "divine side" Sky. Because that is exactly what I am arguing. That Christs "body/human side" was born after fallen Adam. But Christs "divine/spiritual and moral nature", was after God. Christ took a fully post edenic fallen body with all its wants and needs. But His divine nature, His Spirit was in that human fallen body. Now to say what was inside that body was "sin", as in our case when we are born after the flesh, is incorrect.
Moderators John317 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 20, 2011 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? You evidently misunderstand my purpose in quoting the Bible Readings (1914-1942). I quote it for the same reason I quote the official doctrines of the church: to show what the church teaches or has taught. I'm certainly not suggesting that you should believe it simply because it is found in that book. But we do need to know what the church taught in this regard and to know how and why the change came about. 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.
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II ....Christ had no sin in Him. Mankind does. I have never argued that Christ had sin in Him, and I doubt anyone else has made that argument. Christ assumed a fallen nature-- that is, a sinful nature. These are one and the same. But they are different from sinfulness, which Christ never had. So, again, yes, Christ had no sin in Him. Christ had a fallen nature, but not a FALLING nature. Do you agree with the statement I quoted from the 1914 edition of Bible Readings? I skimmed the Bible readings John317 as I do not hold them to be authorative. We are agreed that Christ did not have "sin in Him". Now consider this: Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Paul states that the "carnal man" had sin that dwelled in him. Now you state that Christ had no sin in Him. Would you then agree that we have sin in us according to Paul. If both of those are true, which they are, then there is only one obvious conclusion. Christ was different to us, we are born with sin in us, Christ was not. We are born with a sinful spiritual nature. Christ was not.
miz3 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Being controlled by the Spirit is not the same as saying we have no choice in whom we serve. Everyone is either controlled by Satan or by the Holy Spirit. But being controlled by the Spirit gives us freedom to choose. In fact, it is the only way to have genuine liberty. We are agreed that we are either CONTROLLED BY the Holy Spirit or we are CONTROLLED BY satan. Where we disagree: That such control does or does not remove choice. You say: Control by satan equals no choice? Control by the Holy Spirit gives freedom of choice! Do you agree with this?
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II 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? You evidently misunderstand my purpose in quoting the Bible Readings (1914-1942). I quote it for the same reason I quote the official doctrines of the church: to show what the church teaches or has taught. I'm certainly not suggesting that you should believe it simply because it is found in that book. But we do need to know what the church taught in this regard and to know how and why the change came about. I apologise John317. I thought you was using it as an authoratitive source.
Twilight II Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 If we do not understand how Christ overcame, we will never understand how we are to overcome. This teaching is vital to victory in Christ.
Moderators John317 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 20, 2011 Do you agree with the statement I quoted from the 1914 edition of Bible Readings? Originally Posted By: Twilight II I skimmed the Bible readings John317 as I do not hold them to be authorative. Again, I didn't quote it because it is "authorative" but I quoted it to show what the church believed from the turn of the century (and long before) until 1949. The official doctrines of the SDA church as printed in the 1919 edition of the SDA Source Book for Bible Students also are not authoritative, but they are good to study in order to understand what the church teaches. It's the same with Bible Readings. I used to believe that Christ assumed the unfallen nature of Adam, but after studying the topic in the Bible and Ellen White, I changed my thinking on this topic. 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 OK. :-) The only things that are authoritative for me are the Bible and Ellen White's writings. 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 You say: Control by satan equals no choice? Control by the Holy Spirit gives freedom of choice! Do you agree with this? I definitely agree that when a slave of Satan I have no choice whether to sin or not. But Satan cannot prevent His slaves from deciding to call upon God for help. Satan can keep them from being able to pray or to read the Bible, but God is always able to read the heart, and He knows when Satan's slaves want His help to be free of Satan. I also agree that control by the Holy Spirit give freedom of choice. In fact, the only free people are those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit. God's slaves are free to serve Him but they are also free to reject God if they want to. God will do all He can to keep them, but one thing God won't do is force Himself on them. That doesn't mean God gives up on us easily, though. God will keep working on us to influence us, but "influence" does not prevent freedom of choice. For instance, a parent will try to influence a child to do right, but that influence doesn't mean the child isn't free to disobey. You apparently believe that if there is any influence being applied or if a person is not absolutely free to make any choice whatsoever, then there is no freedom of choice. I disagree with this definition of freedom of choice. 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 If we do not understand how Christ overcame, we will never understand how we are to overcome. This teaching is vital to victory in Christ. Yes, it is. And how did Christ resist temptation and overcome? Isn't Christ our model in resisting sin and overcoming? 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 So now it is referring to the point inbetween crucifixion and ascenscion? Absolutely.
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II ....Christ had no sin in Him. Mankind does. I have never argued that Christ had sin in Him, and I doubt anyone else has made that argument. Christ assumed a fallen nature-- that is, a sinful nature. These are one and the same. But they are different from sinfulness, which Christ never had. So, again, yes, Christ had no sin in Him. Christ had a fallen nature, but not a FALLING nature. I think we are getting into semantics? Paul referred to the sin nature in human flesh as "sin dwelling in me". So yes, of itself, the sin nature is sin. IF it weren't sin we could take it to heaven the day of the resurrection. Here's Ellen White: The teaching given in regard to what is termed "holy flesh" is an error. All may now obtain holy hearts (minds), 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). When human beings receive holy flesh, they will not remain on the earth, but will be taken to heaven. While sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed. It is at His coming that Christ is to "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body"(Phil. 3:21). . . .[2SM 32, 33] The body is vile, not because it's grotesque, but because the body is contaminated with our bent-to-sin (iniquity). Paul states it's in our members. This we cannot take to heaven.
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 John317, Then you believe in "limited choice"? Look, miz3, before conversion we were ruled by our sin nature. It was very natural. Of course we didn't do everything it wanted because we would end up in jail. Keep in mind your sin nature doesn't want you in jail, then it can't have its way.....It is limited. When we become Christians we began to give up these sinful desires to Christ and then He, through the Spirit, overrides the sin nature. But it's all free will....We can make the choice for God to take over our natures.
miz3 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Look, miz3, before conversion we were ruled by our sin nature. It was very natural. Of course we didn't do everything it wanted because we would end up in jail. Keep in mind your sin nature doesn't want you in jail, then it can't have its way.....It is limited. When we become Christians we began to give up these sinful desires to Christ and then He, through the Spirit, overrides the sin nature. But it's all free will....We can make the choice for God to take over our natures. I do not mean to hurt your feelings but this is the most confused and erroneous description I have ever heard. There are so many contradictions inherent in what you are saying. The bottom line is that it is NOT BIBLICAL!
Sonny Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 The body is vile, not because it's grotesque, but because the body is contaminated with our bent-to-sin (iniquity). Paul states it's in our members. This we cannot take to heaven. This is how Christ became sin, who as God knew no sin. He didn't become a sinner - as in transgression of the law. But because He, as the son of man, associated Himself as one of us He came under the curse. Again, not became He sinned, but because He linked Himself to Adam's fallen life. The life Christ assumed had in it "iniquity"...Maybe that's a better word. Usually we think of sin as transgression of the law, but not in the case of Christ. As children of Adam we stand condemned because we are copies of his life after the fall. We immediately sin because we are born with our natures and minds in harmony. This wasn't the case with Christ. So when we read, "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" it simply means that Christ's assumed humanity came under the curse, not for sinning, but for sharing the fallen life of Adam. Have you notice how I use verb assume when it come to Christ's humanity? The reason I do this is because Christ took it up to redeem it. He didn't remain this way. Yes, He remains human, but it's a glorified humanity free from all traces of sin. That's why I use that verb. So Christ became sin, who as God knew no sin, because He took the condemned human life of Adam indwelt with sin. But in that humanity He never sinned.
miz3 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 So when we read, "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" it simply means that Christ's assumed humanity came under the curse, not for sinning, but for sharing the fallen life of Adam. 1. You have already been shown that "born under the law" has nothing whatever to do with Jesus Christ's human nature. Yet you persist in using what has been shown to be false. 2. You surround this falsehood with confusing and contorted logic and language that makes no sense. Really Sonny!
skyblue888 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 How did Jesus overcome? "In Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. This is why, although He was tempted in all points like as we are, He stood before the world, from His first entrance into it, untainted by corruption, though surounded by it. Are we not also to become partakers of that fullness, and is it not thus, and thus only, that we can overcome as He overcame?" B.C. Vol.7, p.907; Vol.7A, 351. He did not overcome through His own divinity but He, as a man, by faith in the promises of God, became a partaker of all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. This is how He overcame and we may overcome as He overcame. By appropriating His merits to ourselves, we also may become partakers of the same fullness and thus overcome as He overcame. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 He did not overcome through His own divinity but He, as a man, by faith in the promises of God, became a partaker of all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. sky Very good point. The question then is what happened to Christ's Divinity? When Christ became a man in the incarnation He had to give up not His divinity, but His divine prerogatives, in other words, the independent use of His divinity. Even His God-consciousness had to be given up. Jesus discovered He was God only by revelation. He was not God-conscious as a baby. He had to grow up in knowledge. He had to grow up in everything because He had given up the independent use of His divinity and was made in all things like unto us (Heb. 2:17). Therefore, He was totally God-dependent all through His earthly ministry. John 5:30 says, “I can do nothing of myself.” John 6:57 says, “I live by the Father.” See also John 8:28 and John 14:10. All these texts state very clearly that Christ was totally God-dependent.[JS]
skyblue888 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Right. He could have raised His humanity from the grave but He did not. That was for the Father to do for even in the grave He was our example. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES By M.L. Andreason, an emeritus professor at Andrews University in those days when the compromises were made over the nature of Christ in His humanity. THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST "It may interest the reader to know how the new theology regarding the human nature of Christ came to be accepted by the leaders, and how it came to be included in QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, and thus receive official standing. The question of the nature of Christ while in the flesh is one of the foundation pillars of Christianity. On this doctrine hangs the destiny of man. The apostle John makes it a deciding factor by saying, "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." "And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." 1 John 4:2,3. In what kind of flesh did Jesus come to this earth? "Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation." Desire of Ages, p.117. "Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." Rom.1:3. Only as Christ placed Himself on the level of the humanity He had come to save, could He demonstrate to men how to overcome their infirmities and passions. If the men with whom He associated had understood that He was exempt from the passions with which they had to battle, His influence would immediately have been destroyed and He would be reckoned a deceiver. His pronouncement, "I have overcome the world," (John 16:33), would be accepted as a dishonest boast; for without passions He had nothing to overcome. His promise that "to him that overcomes will I grant to sit down with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father on His throne," (Revelation 3:21), would be met by the claim that if God would exempt men from passions, they also could do what Christ had done. That God exempted Christ from the passions that corrupt men, is the acme of all heresy. It is destruction of all true religion and completely nullifies the plan of redemption, and makes God a deceiver and Christ His accomplice. Great responsibility rests upon those who teach such false doctrine to the destruction of souls." sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES M.L. Andreason A GOD-DISHONORING DOCTRINE "The truth of course, is that God "spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us," (Romans 8:32); rather because His nature was sensitive to the least slight or disrespect or contempt, His tests were harder and His temptations stronger than any we have to endure. He resisted "even unto blood". No, God did not spare or exempt Him. In His agony He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared." Hebrews 5:7. "Though He were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which He suffered." Verse 8. In view of all this, we repeat the question, How did this God-dishonoring doctrine find its way into our denomination? Was it the result of close and prayerful study by competent men over a series of years, and were the final conclusions submitted to the denomination in public representative meetings, advertised beforehand in the Review giving the details of what changes were contemplated, as the denomination has voted as the proper procedure? None of these things were done. An anonymous book appeared and men were judged and the brakes tightened on any one who objected." sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Gustave Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gustave Miz3, is absolutely right - there was as much chance that Christ wouldn't have born from a Virgin........As there there was a chance He could have sinned. Guys...come on. Why would Christ as God even be connected to Mary in the first place? Mary didn't birth God. God is self-existing...He has always existed. So again, what does this have to do with Mary? Mary was the Mother of "God" in that Jesus was absolutely "GOD"... ...The title does not mean Mary antedated "God". ...It simply is a confirmation that Jesus was God Manifest.
Recommended Posts