miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 SDAs have not concluded that Christ had sin in Him Sonny does!
Moderators John317 Posted June 24, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 24, 2011 I doubt Sonny believes that Christ "had sin in Him." But I will let him answer for himself. 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.
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Quote: *Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of HIS EARTHLY ANCESTORS. HE CAME WITH SUCH A HEREDITY..." DA 49; This quote from the Desire of Ages page 49 is Ellen White's opinion which she shared with many others of her day. This opinion does not fit what the Scripture states to be true. The Bible states the opposite of this view.
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Quote: SOP: "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}" Compare this quote with the one from Desire of Ages page 49 cited above. In this quote here Ellen White says the opposite of what she stated in DA pg.49. Hmmmm!
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 At the incarnation, Christ was made what He was not by Divine, the Son of Man. The moment Christ, as a man, was "made flesh" that moment He came under the curse of the law - but not for sinning. He stood condemned because He took our life indwelt with our bent. Simply NOT BIBLICAL!
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 But because you place the sin in Christ at the incarnation (which there is no biblical evidence for in my mind), you cannot but end up with the wrong conclusions about Christ and whether He had lusts and desires in Him. BINGO! (to quote Sonny).
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 This argument is so culturally ingrained in SDA thought, that many do not really understand what they are in fact saying. BINGO AGAIN!
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Why would you be tempted to become sinful if you have a sinless nature? This is a great question, however, Adam who had a sinless nature in fact did sin! Explain that?
Gustave Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 When the sin of humanity was laid on Christ at that cross, the Father withdrew Himself. Up to that point, Christ had been the spotless lamb of God, with no taint of sin on Him or indeed in Him. He had no sin in Him. The lusts and desires we experience were not there. But once He took that sin upon Himself on the cross, once that sin entered that bruised and beaten body. Then He became sin for us. Then His Father forsook Him: Psa 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring? Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. Psa 22:3 But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel. Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. Psa 22:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. Psa 22:6 But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. The part you said which I bolded is not correct...... ....The Father NEVER forsook The Son. ....Again, this is heretical teaching.
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 When the sin of humanity was laid on Christ at that cross, the Father withdrew Himself. Up to that point, Christ had been the spotless lamb of God, with no taint of sin on Him or indeed in Him. He had no sin in Him. The lusts and desires we experience were not there. But once He took that sin upon Himself on the cross, once that sin entered that bruised and beaten body. Then He became sin for us. Then His Father forsook Him: Psa 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring? Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. Psa 22:3 But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel. Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. Psa 22:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. Psa 22:6 But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. SUPER BINGO!
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 To rewrite our history He had to do what Adam failed to do, even with a holy nature. The Bible says nothing about "rewriting our history". This a false construct that Jack S. thought up. Such a construct is human and is NOT Biblical!
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny Why would you be tempted to become sinful if you have a sinless nature? This is a great question, however, Adam who had a sinless nature in fact did sin! Explain that? Again, you can't be tempted if there's no desire or lust in you. He did sin, but no one can say why. It's a mystery...the mystery of iniquity.
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 I do not know whether Christ recieved humanity from His mother, or whether the Holy Spirit gave it from scratch. God doesn't create sin, period. If the Holy Spirit produced our sinful humanity, then we can blame the Trinity for creating sin. God made us in His own image...He made us perfect in Adam.
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny To rewrite our history He had to do what Adam failed to do, even with a holy nature. The Bible says nothing about "rewriting our history". Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression [Adam's] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. Adam's sin polluted humanity and made us slaves to sin. Christ's righteousness reversed Adam's condemnation. That's rewriting our history. The only difference is we had no choice in Adam, but in Christ we do: For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression [Adam's] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. To justify sinners means that it's legal - that one has been justified according to the framework of God's law. Clearly "we died...in the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4). What type of humanity do "we" have? Right, a fallen humanity. Where did Christ assume our humanity? It couldn't be at the cross because the law requires two things: 1] Perfect obedience 2] Justice IF we say that only # 2 was satisfied then the law hasn't been fully answered. So Christ had to assume our humanity from the beginning so that He could live a life of obedience in us. Otherwise we are not justified.
hbryan Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Silly question. God allows for sin, it is why we are free. Adam was born without sin but could be convinced to sin because he was given the freedom to choose rebel, just as Satan did.
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Adam was born without sin but could be convinced to sin because he was given the freedom to choose rebel... That answers nothing....Why would Adam, infilled with God's Spirit, and in perfect harmony with God's agape, desire to do something unnatural?
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Quote: Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression [Adam's] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. That's not rewriting. That is God's declaration (fiat).
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Where did Christ assume our humanity? It couldn't be at the cross because the law requires two things: The Cross, Sonny, the Cross! Why? Because it is Biblical! Anything else is NOT Biblical!
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Quote: Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression [Adam's] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. That's not rewriting. That is God's declaration (fiat). Definition of fiat: "an authoritative or arbitrary order" Not "no", but heck no!!! God works within His law - otherwise you make God a joke. The reason we stand condemned is because of His law. The reason God legally redeemed us was because He did it through His law. He couldn't bypass it - He had to answer it.
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny Where did Christ assume our humanity? It couldn't be at the cross because the law requires two things: The Cross, Sonny, the Cross!! I think you are caught in loop....Try reading what I say. You are not an authority. I don't take your words over the Bible. The cross took care of the justice of God's law, but it didn't take care of the obedience that it demands.
Gustave Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Just as an athlete becomes more by pouring or emptying himself into his training, so the pre-incarnate Christ became "more" by pouring or emptying Himself in a human nature that could suffer and die for our sins. "But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all. And you too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me" (NAS Phil. 2:17-18). In His identification with Christ St. Paul parallels his own pouring out with Christ's. Paul's sacrifice was finite and future, thus "poured out." Christ's was infinite and an accomplished fact; Paul chose the strongest words to describe the magnitude of the sacrifice, He "emptied Himself." "How did He 'empty Himself?'" ask St Augustine. "By taking that which He was not, not by losing that which He was." "'What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed,' Only by failing to properly ascribe Biblical statements to Christ's two natures can anyone conclude that the pre-incarnate Christ literally emptied Himself of anything.
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 You are not an authority. I don't take your words over the Bible. Neither are you Sonny! You are trying to assert something based on your authority and that of Jack S. You assert authority in adding your twisted logic to what the Scripture is actually saying.
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 The cross took care of the justice of God's law, but it didn't take care of the obedience that it demands. I can agree with this statement! However, you then go on to pollute that statement by asserting the unBiblical assumption that Jesus Christ had a "sinful nature" like you and I. Jesus Christ in His "sinless nature" indeed by a life of obedience met the demands of the Law!
Twilight II Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II If you cannot talk about the fall of Adam, you will never understand how Christ was tempted Sonny. To deem a topic as "unapproachable", when God has given it to us to consider is a very dangerous thing to do. Okay. How did Adam sin? Keep in mind Adam was made in the image and likeness of God. His nature was selfless - there was no self-seeking - no bent to self. He, like His creator, lived to serve. That's agape.... He chose to differ from Gods will. At that point, he had no inherited tendencies to sin because it was a new thing for him. And he had no cultivated tendencies to sin, because he had never done it before. But he did have the option to choose to not trust God and go another way. That choice to distrust God is sin in its most basic form. Adam had the capacity to make that choice, otherwise sin would never have entered. Christ was exactly the same. No one would ever suggest Christ had "cultivated tendencies to sin". So the only thing left is to suggest that Christ had "inherited tendencies to sin", by giving him the experience in James 1. But Christ did not "need" that to be fully tested. Because Adam did not "need" that to be fully tested in Eden.
Recommended Posts