"In Christ" - the gospel explained

[miz3]

Now, you've already agreed that you have a sinful nature and you've already admitted that you died in Christ.

That means that you were in the body of Christ and hence that body had a sin nature in it.

So Ellen White is correct. Christ, as the Son of God, took upon His sinless nature OUR sinful nature.

Sonny, this is laughable. Your logic is not logic. It so full of holes.

For one your three steps do not show that it took place at the Incarnation. It doesn't anything about "when"!

On that basis alone you are wrong!

You are the one who has dug the deep hole but you refuse to acknowledge it!

You can't win from the Bible and you take a lone phrase from Ellen White which is not even in the context in which you try and use her. Which means the phrase from Ellen White does not count and does not say what you are trying to make it say!

I warned you when you used the phrase that you were taking the phrase out of context. Which means you making the phrase say something that Ellen White herself never meant it to say. You said you didn't care about the context. However, if you want to connect the phrase to other data you must for the sake of HONESTY use the phrase in context.

You isolated the phrase and asked me that if in this isolated state was the phrase true. I said yes!

If you put the phrase in context it does not say what you are trying to make it say.

If you isolate the data point in one sense you then cannot attach that same data point to other data because you took the first data point out of context. Such actions are not HONEST! Good researchers and good Bible students do not do such things. This is in fact what you have done, Sonny.

You have taken Ellen White's phrase out context then tried to attach it other information. That makes your logic wrong! because you information was taken out of context.

You can't use tainted data Sonny and claim victory!

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Now, you've already agreed that you have a sinful nature and you've already admitted that you died in Christ.

That means that you were in the body of Christ and hence that body had a sin nature in it.

So Ellen White is correct. Christ, as the Son of God, took upon His sinless nature OUR sinful nature.

Sonny, this is laughable. Your logic is not logic. It so full of holes.

Then laugh at yourself because you've agreed every step of the way. I really can't take you seriously.....I think you like to play games. Not me.

[Sonny]

It doesn't anything about "when"!

No, therefore you just made a big to do about nothing. Now, pray tell, when did God's Spirit put your life, indwelt with the sin nature, into Christ?

[miz3]

Sonny,

Please have a serious and honest discussion.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

When then? When did God put you into Christ and don't just say he put me into Christ at the cross because I won't accept this rant without absolute proof.

THE CROSS SONNY, THE CROSS!

Do as you like but I have presented what the Bible says!

You are acting childish, miz3. You make ridiculous claims, but in reality you have no support.

Show me where God's Spirit put you into Christ. I need the Bible evidence. Yes?

Here's evidence that God put you into Christ:

1 Cor 1:30 It is because of him [God] that you are in Christ Jesus

So, now, give me evidence when God placed you into Christ because what you are giving me is only half the gospel. It is true that "you died" in the humanity of Christ on the cross. This however only answers the justice of God's law. What about the obedience that God's law requires?

Keep in mind the law requires,

1] Perfect obedience

2] perfect justice.

In your worldview only # 2 is essential, but again this is half the gospel!

[miz3]

Whatever, Sonny!

[Sonny]

So, now, give me evidence when God placed you into Christ because what you are giving me is only half the gospel.

I'll help you:

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.

Did you get that? The Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, has set made YOU free "the law of sin" (the power of the sin nature) and "death" (i.e., the 2nd death).

How?

Verse 3 For what the law couldn't do, in that it (the law) was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh

Why?

that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Notice that first Christ defeated "the law of sin". He condemned sin, where? "in the flesh". Because Christ defeated the flesh you might also if you walk as Christ walked. So the context is power over the sinful nature, not dying on the cross.

You were made obedient in Christ because He "condemned" your sinful nature. He said "no" to your nature for 33 years.

So when did God place you into Christ? Before the cross.

[Sonny]

Whatever, Sonny!

Giving up? Good, come join those proclaiming the fully and complete gospel. You are halfway there....

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: John312

This is a mere statement of an opinion, not evidence of the truth. Prove your conclusion from the Bible evidence and show your reasoning.

Ellen White is not pure as the driven snow either as evidenced by many on this website who have pointed out using her quotations as evidence that she was not always Biblical. Again, you are free to use her as an authority in way you choose.

Thus, how can you ask such a question as "Prove your conclusion from the Bible" when this whole thread and the "Creeds" thread is loaded to the extreme with my Bible quotes and the quotes of others like Twilight!

[Musicman1228]

Sonny and miz3,

You are both proving a point that I and RR have been saying for months, and that is by using Paul as your source for truth you can 'prove' opposite points using the same testimony. Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth, which makes it possible for two people of opposing points of view to claim that they have proven their theology by using the 'bible'. You are both trying to find truth, yet both of you are at odds with each other based on how you read the conflicting statements of Paul; then you say that there is no conflict between Paul and Jesus Christ. As is seen in this discussion there is plenty of conflict just between Paul's own words, much less when you compare what he says to what Jesus says.

Where is the unity in this that Jesus prayed for in John 17? Unity can only be found in the words of Jesus Christ, because Jesus NEVER conflict with the words of His Father.

Because you both are honestly trying to find truth but using the words of Paul as your source you will NEVER find the unity of truth that you so desperately seek. This should demonstrate to you that what you think is 'honest' truth from Paul is actually a fallacy which can only lead to discord and disunity.

I guarantee you this, that if you go back to the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone against which to test your theology you will find unity in the truth.

[Twilight II]

Sonny and miz3,

You are both proving a point that I and RR have been saying for months, and that is by using Paul as your source for truth you can 'prove' opposite points using the same testimony. Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth, which makes it possible for two people of opposing points of view to claim that they have proven their theology by using the 'bible'. You are both trying to find truth, yet both of you are at odds with each other based on how you read the conflicting statements of Paul; then you say that there is no conflict between Paul and Jesus Christ. As is seen in this discussion there is plenty of conflict just between Paul's own words, much less when you compare what he says to what Jesus says.

Where is the unity in this that Jesus prayed for in John 17? Unity can only be found in the words of Jesus Christ, because Jesus NEVER conflict with the words of His Father.

Because you both are honestly trying to find truth but using the words of Paul as your source you will NEVER find the unity of truth that you so desperately seek. This should demonstrate to you that what you think is 'honest' truth from Paul is actually a fallacy which can only lead to discord and disunity.

I guarantee you this, that if you go back to the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone against which to test your theology you will find unity in the truth.

Or you could just treat the above post as a misguided attack on the gospel of Jesus Christ and His apostles...

[Sonny]

But rather in an "external clothing" sense.

[Sonny]

Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth, which makes it possible for two people of opposing points of view to claim that they have proven their theology by using the 'bible'.

I like Paul - I don't have a problem with his theology.

[miz3]

I'll help you:

Thank you but I don't need your help. It is clear that you do not understand Paul and you don't understand Matthew and Luke, and you don't understand the writings of John the Disciple.

If you did understand them instead of understanding Jack S. you might be able to find the Truth.

You have taken the words of Jack S. to the words of the Bible.

As such you cannot be of any help to me!

[miz3]

I think we share pretty much the same understanding of Christ's nature having no "sin in Him", which is in fact the official SDA position I am led to believe(do not read too much into the views on this board being a representation).

Thank you!

We may not agree on other things but it does indeed appear that we agree on this issue.

Your expressions were especially cogent!

[miz3]

With the purpose of connecting mankind with God.

So the way Ellen White uses sinful nature is different to how many on this board have presented it to you.

Ellen White referred to the "outer humanity" as the "sinful nature".

But many read her writings and equate "sinful nature" with the "internal nature" of Jesus.

But she is not using it in an "internal" sense.

But rather in an "external clothing" sense.

But it is clear, that she did not believe Christ had sin in Him, in the quote above.

But was "clothed" with humanity.

That humanity was a "post fall" humanity.

But it was different in that it had no sin in it.

Does that make sense?

Yes, Twilight this does make sense to me!

Again, your analysis is excellent!

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Sonny and miz3,

You are both proving a point that I and RR have been saying for months, and that is by using Paul as your source for truth you can 'prove' opposite points using the same testimony. Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth, which makes it possible for two people of opposing points of view to claim that they have proven their theology by using the 'bible'. You are both trying to find truth, yet both of you are at odds with each other based on how you read the conflicting statements of Paul; then you say that there is no conflict between Paul and Jesus Christ. As is seen in this discussion there is plenty of conflict just between Paul's own words, much less when you compare what he says to what Jesus says.

Where is the unity in this that Jesus prayed for in John 17? Unity can only be found in the words of Jesus Christ, because Jesus NEVER conflict with the words of His Father.

Because you both are honestly trying to find truth but using the words of Paul as your source you will NEVER find the unity of truth that you so desperately seek. This should demonstrate to you that what you think is 'honest' truth from Paul is actually a fallacy which can only lead to discord and disunity.

I guarantee you this, that if you go back to the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone against which to test your theology you will find unity in the truth.

Or you could just treat the above post as a misguided attack on the gospel of Jesus Christ and His apostles...

In order to prove that this is a misguided attack on the gospel of Jesus Christ and His apostles you would first have to show me what the gospel of Jesus Christ is from the words and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and then you would have to prove to me which disciples were confirmed by Jesus Christ when He was here in the flesh. I have never attacked Jesus Christ the Son of God in any form, nor have I attacked any of His true disciples who became apostles who were eyewitnesses to His ministry on earth.

Did Jesus Christ confirm Paul/Saul as an Apostle while Jesus was in ministry here on the earth? If you say He did this then you would have to prove that it was actually Jesus Christ Himself that accosted Paul on the road to Damascus and not some figment of Paul's imagination, or some effort of Satan to insinuate himself into the budding Christian church in order to put it off track. Show me corroborating eyewitness evidence from Scripture that someone other than Paul saw or even heard the being that called himself 'Jesus' call Saul as an apostle. This you cannot do because there is no eyewitness testimony from anyone other than Paul that was with Paul on the road to Damascus. Also tell me which of the three stories of Paul's conversion is the actual real story; it seems that Paul himself doesn't know which story is the correct one.

If you can't or won't do this then I will stick with the truth as taught by Jesus Christ and Him alone. I have no need for hearsay evidence that will lead me into being deceived. Ref. Matt. 24:4,11.

[miz3]

You are both proving a point that I and RR have been saying for months, and that is by using Paul as your source for truth you can 'prove' opposite points using the same testimony. Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth, which makes it possible for two people of opposing points of view to claim that they have proven their theology by using the 'bible'. You are both trying to find truth, yet both of you are at odds with each other based on how you read the conflicting statements of Paul; then you say that there is no conflict between Paul and Jesus Christ. As is seen in this discussion there is plenty of conflict just between Paul's own words, much less when you compare what he says to what Jesus says.

I cannot agree with this.

The problem is not with Paul and his theology! The problem appears to be with the way Sonny views Paul!

Sonny takes Jack S. theology and then interprets Paul according to Jack S.

Now Sonny and Jack S. are entitled to their opinion but there opinions are not Biblical. They both make Paul and the Gospel too complicated. More importantly they read things into the Bible that are just plain not there.

For example they say that Mary's DNA was in Christ. The Bible says no such thing. Matthew chapter one is quit plain that it was the Holy Spirit that conceived Jesus Christ and that Mary was only and Incubator/Surrogate.

Again, it is not Paul but Sonny and Jack S. who misunderstand Paul.

[Twilight II]

you would first have to show me what the gospel of Jesus Christ is from the words and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself,

Why would I have to prove such a thing?

It wasn't a requirement Jesus set...

That is your requirement, why should I heed your requirement?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

With the purpose of connecting mankind with God.

So the way Ellen White uses sinful nature is different to how many on this board have presented it to you.

Ellen White referred to the "outer humanity" as the "sinful nature".

But many read her writings and equate "sinful nature" with the "internal nature" of Jesus.

But she is not using it in an "internal" sense.

But rather in an "external clothing" sense.

But it is clear, that she did not believe Christ had sin in Him, in the quote above.

But was "clothed" with humanity.

That humanity was a "post fall" humanity.

But it was different in that it had no sin in it.

Does that make sense?

Yes, Twilight this does make sense to me!

Again, your analysis is excellent!

[Dr. Rich]

Sonny and miz3,

You are both proving a point that I and RR have been saying for months, and that is by using Paul as your source for truth you can 'prove' opposite points using the same testimony. Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth, which makes it possible for two people of opposing points of view to claim that they have proven their theology by using the 'bible'. You are both trying to find truth, yet both of you are at odds with each other based on how you read the conflicting statements of Paul; then you say that there is no conflict between Paul and Jesus Christ. As is seen in this discussion there is plenty of conflict just between Paul's own words, much less when you compare what he says to what Jesus says.

Where is the unity in this that Jesus prayed for in John 17? Unity can only be found in the words of Jesus Christ, because Jesus NEVER conflict with the words of His Father.

Because you both are honestly trying to find truth but using the words of Paul as your source you will NEVER find the unity of truth that you so desperately seek. This should demonstrate to you that what you think is 'honest' truth from Paul is actually a fallacy which can only lead to discord and disunity.

I guarantee you this, that if you go back to the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone against which to test your theology you will find unity in the truth.

MM, some have no idea why this ONE issue is MOST the important issue to understand. But to use Paul's own words as to WHY he would say one thing and then say the complete opposite another time makes it clear in MY own understanding that Paul was a false apostle. Here, allow me to show you why:

1Cor.9:19-23: "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being MYSELF under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without the law as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Crist, that I might win those who are without law."

"To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN, that I may by all means save some. And I DO ALL THING for the sake of [my] gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it."

Why is this important? Because this is the proof in the pudding that the words of Paul can be used (as has been proven here on this thread) in an attempt to prove anything YOU want it to. This ONE statment would get all of Paul's testimony thrown out of any court!

Jesus' testimony was the STRAIGHT TRUTH and totally different than Paul's! So why do most of you make fun of this? How sad!

[miz3]

Ellen White used metaphors also....

I have noticed that this is a particular tactic of yours whenever you do not have an answer for something or when some clear unambiguous Bible or "inspired" fact is shown you that you cannot wiggle out of.

If it does not fit yours or Jack S. view of things then its "a metaphor"????

[skyblue888]

A message from God on this very issue was presented at the 1895 General Conference:

"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. And when He was tempted, it was the "drawing away of these desires that were in the flesh." These tendencies to sin that were in His flesh drew upon Him and sought to entice Him, to consent to the wrong. But by the love of God and by His trust in God, he received the power and the strength and the grace to say, "No," to all of it and put it all under foot. And thus being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh.

All the tendencies to sin that are in me were in Him, and not one of them was ever allowed to appear in Him. All the tendencies to sin that are in you were in Him, and not one of them was ever allowed to appear--every one was put under foot and kept there. All the tendencies to sin that are in the other man were in Him, and not one of them was ever allowed to appear. That is simply saying that all the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in His human flesh, and not one of them was ever allowed to appear; He conquered them all. And in Him we all have victory over them all.

Many of these tendencies to sin that are in us have appeared in action, and have become sins committed, have become sins in the open. There is a difference between a tendency to sin and the open appearing of that sin in the actions. There are tendencies to sin in us that have not yet appeared, but multitudes have appeared. Now all the tendencies that have not appeared, He conquered. What of the sins that have actually appeared? "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6) "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Peter 2:24. Thus it is plain that all the tendencies to sin that are in us and have not appeared and all the sins which have appeared were laid upon Him. It is terrible. It is true. But, O, joy! In that terrible truth lies the completeness of our salvation." A.T. Jones, G.C. Bulletin, p.266,267.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

Sky, A. T. Jones was one who led the Adventists down the path to destruction with those kind of words. The simple truth of the matter is that we all have a choice and so did Jesus Christ----as did Lucifer at one time. One either chooses to obey, or not. One who obeys completes the conditions in the contract called the covenant in order for God to be your God. Fail to abide by those conditions and it is impossible for God to be your God.

This whole issue of "In Chirst" means to abide IN His words--period!

[Twilight II]

A message from God on this very issue was presented at the 1895 General Conference:

"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. And when He was tempted, it was the "drawing away of these desires that were in the flesh." These tendencies to sin that were in His flesh drew upon Him and sought to entice Him, to consent to the wrong. But by the love of God and by His trust in God, he received the power and the strength and the grace to say, "No," to all of it and put it all under foot. And thus being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh.

sky

When did Jones become a prophet Sky?

You seem to be holding him up to that standard for some reason.

Jesus had "no sin in Him".

Whereas we have "sin in us".

According to the bible.

Jones was in error on this point.

To claim this is inspiration when it contradicts Paul and John is wrong. :-)