OMEGA of Apostasy - what do you think it is?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Sorry I am derailing your very cogent thoughts on the nature of Christ! I should have left the other alone!

It all weaves in and out.

If we can deal with Pauls weaving in and out, we should be able to allow ourselves the same privilege... :-)

You are being more than generous. Thank you!

[Twilight II]

To take the position that Christ "could not have been different", means Christ had to be born fallen.

Miz 3

____________________

Christ was not born fallen but Jesus was. The Christ of God is larger than the man Jesus of Nazareth.

"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 oeverpower Him and hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation." Eearly Writings, p.152.

But that did not mean that at some point after His birth He would have to be converted. He was born of the Holy Spirit from the womb just as John the Baptist was just as it is possible for every child of Adam if the parents are truly converted to God.

sky

But Sky, you are claiming on the one hand Christ was different.

Yet on the other claiming that anyone claiming Christ was different to your understanding of how He was different makes them apostates, either intentionally or through ignorance...

You cannot on the one hand be claiming Christ was different, but then condemn others who state Christ was different.

Either Christ was fully the same as us, or He was different.

I think everyone here agrees on that.

So I think it unhealthy to start claiming that it is the Omega to discuss how Christ was different because it differs from our own understanding.

The church got into a big mess in the 50's because both sides could not listen to the other side.

It seems that mistake is still going on...

[Twilight II]

Twilight, miz3 wrote:

Quote:

John317 Mary the mother of Jesus is not "immaculate". The Bible does not support that!

However, you and I have discussed Christ's birth before. Matthew chapter one clearly states that the ONLY ENTITY INVOLVED IN THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Neither Mary or Joseph contributed anything to the conception!

Do you believe this?

I think miz3 makes a good argument in that the conception was through the Holy Ghost.

But I haven't taken the time to study it in depth.

My initial thoughts are, that whilst the conception was indeed through the Holy Ghost, a human element was used, because it is said that Christ was made under the Law.

But these are only passing thoughts as I have not considered it thoroughly.

I can understand miz3's argument though, whilst understanding the counter argument.

So I would have to refuse to be drawn on this, not having studied it out for myself.

[skyblue888]

Having sin in Him and having sinful flesh is not the same. One can have sinful flesh without having sin in him. Jesus proved it. He never yielded to the flesh, to the drawings of the flesh. The enticements that Jesus resisted were those that we find it so difficult to withstand. These are the enticements from a fallen sinful flesh. He was a descendant of David according to the flesh.

sky

[Twilight II]

Having sin in Him and having sinful flesh is not the same. One can have sinful flesh without having sin in him. Jesus proved it. He never yielded to the flesh, to the drawings of the flesh. The enticements that Jesus resisted were those that we find it so difficult to withstand. These are the enticements from a fallen sinful flesh. He was a descendant of David according to the flesh.

sky

You would have to define "sinful flesh" Sky.

Because "sinful flesh" with propensities to sin in it, is the same as having sin in Him.

Sin is defined as two different things in the bible.

1. Something we inherit genetically.

2. Something we choose to do.

Christ had no sin in Him.

So he could not have:

1. Inherited genetic sin.

2. Chosen to sin by agreeing to Satans temptations.

We are by nature "sinful" and condemned for Adams sin.

We can only escape that condemnation by cutting our ties to Adam...

[ClubV12]

1. Christ came with the body of Adam post fall, which included sinful propensities that He inherited. (This is the position Sky adopts).

2. Christ came with the sinless flesh of Adam pre-fall untouched by sin.

3. Christ did not come with a human body at all. (Which John warns against).

4. Christ came with the body of Adam post fall but there were no sinful propensities in that body.

I'd have to rule out #3 without any further consideration. Do some people actually believe that? Strange...

Anyway, is the "big deal" because some folks believe you CANNOT ever live a perfect life based on what version of humanity/divinity they take? Thus, in effect, using their belief of humanity/divinity as an "excuse" to deny the possibility of perfection and still be saved?

As to "looking at the church" to determine what is and what isn't reasonable standards, I gave up on that concept. It WAS important for a time, when I was first learning the in's and out's of an acceptable Seventh-day Adventist lifestyle. But more and more I'm taking my standards of "what it means to be a christian", even more, what it means to be a "Seventh-day Adventist" from the lifestyle presented in the bible and the SOP.

[skyblue888]

John and I believe the same thing.

"But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was srrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation." D.A.117.

It is not a private opinion but the truth as stated above and in Romans 1:3; Heb.2:14; 4:15.

sky

[ClubV12]

"For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity." D.A. 117

As if this weren't weakening enough, as I recall the temptor came at the very end of Christs 40 day fast. When, physically, he was at the lowest possible point of human survival. Following the temptaions He literally collapsed and was tended to by angels, lest He actually, humanly, perish.

[skyblue888]

What are you saying exactly?

sky

[teresaq]

I wonder if you guys started being specific instead of speaking in generalities if you would start understanding each other.

The bible lists at least 3 temptations, and there were others, such as Jesus not wanting to go through the cross experience.

Maybe if you used those to explain your various positions, maybe-one can only hope-there might be more understanding among you as to what each means.

[ClubV12]

Sky, if you were asking me what I was saying, exactly:

I was just impressed with that Sister White quote of the position Jesus placed Himself in our behalf. And then considering that on top of that "weakened human position", His temptations came at the lowest possible point of physical human strength. It leaves little excuse to complain, "sin" if you would, when we also are sick, depressed, hungry, tired with little physical strength and feeling vulnerable.

What a remarkable Saviour we have.

He got hungry, he needed sleep, He felt pain, He was human in all respects, like me or any other man.

As to the humanity/divinity thing, however one defines it, I'm just glad to know Him and believe, through His grace, I can be like Him.

[John317]

I think miz3 makes a good argument in that the conception was through the Holy Ghost.

But I haven't taken the time to study it in depth.

My initial thoughts are, that whilst the conception was indeed through the Holy Ghost, a human element was used, because it is said that Christ was made under the Law.

But these are only passing thoughts as I have not considered it thoroughly.

I can understand miz3's argument though, whilst understanding the counter argument.

So I would have to refuse to be drawn on this, not having studied it out for myself.

OK, so you evidently do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was actually related to his mother Mary or to David and Abraham and Adam. That is what miz3 is denying. I am suprised that an SDA would take this position. (I'm assuming you're SDA.)

Galatians 4: 4 says that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under [the] law." "Born" is probably the preferable way of translating that word in that context.

[Twilight II]

John and I believe the same thing.

"But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was srrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation." D.A.117.

It is not a private opinion but the truth as stated above and in Romans 1:3; Heb.2:14; 4:15.

sky

I believe the above is true as well Sky...

But you have inserted this idea that Christ had sin into Him in the statement above, when it is not there.

What is being said here is that Christ took a human body, a post fallen human body.

There is no reference here to Christ having sinful propensities in Him.

What you are doing is what those in Babylon do with "Sunday keeping".

They use texts that do not support their view, but cannot see it.

In Jesus' time the disciples were wrong about the nature of Christs kingdom.

Many were also wrong about the the second coming of Christ being imminent.

In 1844 the millerites were wrong about Christs second coming.

In the formative days of receiving the Sabbath truth, even Ellen Whites understanding of the Sabbath was wrong.

Their understanding of clean and unclean meat was wrong.

Bible Readings for the home was wrong.

There are many things that we have yet to come into the correct light on and this issue of Christ's nature is one of them.

To hold onto the past as if it is some idol to worship is the mistake many have made throughout the history of Christianity.

Our test should be simple.

Is it biblical...

And unfortunately the view you are presenting is not biblical.

The bible does not state anywhere that Christ had to overcome tendencies to lust and desire, the lusts of the "flesh"...

Christ had to overcome temptation, not sin.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I think miz3 makes a good argument in that the conception was through the Holy Ghost.

But I haven't taken the time to study it in depth.

My initial thoughts are, that whilst the conception was indeed through the Holy Ghost, a human element was used, because it is said that Christ was made under the Law.

But these are only passing thoughts as I have not considered it thoroughly.

I can understand miz3's argument though, whilst understanding the counter argument.

So I would have to refuse to be drawn on this, not having studied it out for myself.

OK, so you evidently do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was actually related to his mother Mary or to David and Abraham and Adam. That is what miz3 is denying. I am suprised that an SDA would take this position. (I'm assuming you're SDA.)

Galatians 4: 4 says that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under [the] law." "Born" is probably the preferable way of translating that word in that context.

I have taken no position on this John317 as I have stated above. I have not studied it out in depth.

And yes I am an SDA in good and regular standing...

I hold fully to the 28 fundamentals of the church.

[12tribes]

I think miz3 makes a good argument in that the conception was through the Holy Ghost.

But I haven't taken the time to study it in depth.

My initial thoughts are, that whilst the conception was indeed through the Holy Ghost, a human element was used, because it is said that Christ was made under the Law.

But these are only passing thoughts as I have not considered it thoroughly.

I can understand miz3's argument though, whilst understanding the counter argument.

So I would have to refuse to be drawn on this, not having studied it out for myself.

If Christ did not take our nature then He is not our example and He lived a perfect life under false pretenses, and the demands of the law have not been met. We are not only saved by the death of Christ but, by his perfect life which is transferred to us.

[BobRyan]

Even the most radical among those who insist that Christ had a sinful nature - have had a hard time claiming that Christ's mind was morally corrupt or that he had our inward bent to sin rather than a bent toward unity with His Father.

Many who oppose the SDA teaching on sinless living required after the close of probation - will claim that since Christ did not have a sinful nature he cannot be our example.

How odd then that those two sides should get together on this idea that the doctrine about sinless living during Rev 16 is destroyed if you do not put a sinful nature in Christ since it only serves to destroy the one side's argument - not the other's.

The fact is that the inward bent, the inward moral corruption described in Rom 3:9-12 is a description of the sinful nature that we have - and that Christ did not have.

There is no way around it.

supposing that this stops Christ from offering his sinless perfect life in our stead - makes no sense.

Rather it is the very thing we need offerred "in our stead".

The drunk in the gutter has no more right to claim that Christ is not his example - because Christ was never a drunk in the gutter than those who insist that Christ have a sinful nature "or else".

The drug addict has no more right to claim that Christ is not his example - because Christ was never a drug addict - than those who insist that Christ have a sinful nature "or else".

We could go on to the zillionth example in this fashion - but you get the point.

Rescue and salvation does not require that the rescuers first "become lost and disoriented like the person lost" in order to save them. All such thinking is misguided and lacks a certain amount of well reasoned argument. All Christ had to do was become human - share our fallen nature and then demonstrate the path of righteousness that a born-again new-covenant new-creation believer must follow.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Even the most radical among those who insist that Christ had a sinful nature - have had a hard time claiming that Christ's mind was morally corrupt or that he had our inward bent to sin rather than a bent toward unity with His Father.

Jesus' mind was not morally corrupt. Jesus' inward bent was toward following His Father, in much the same way as born-again believers are. Christ was really born already born again.

[aldona]

The truth does not have two sides to it let alone four!!!

Have you ever read a certain poem about 6 blind men and an elephant?

AJ

[Twilight II]

Rescue and salvation does not require that the rescuers first "become lost and disoriented like the person lost" in order to save them. All such thinking is misguided and lacks a certain amount of well reasoned argument. All Christ had to do was become human - share our fallen nature and then demonstrate the path of righteousness that a born-again new-covenant new-creation believer must follow.

in Christ,

Bob

Indeed.

What is interesting here is that if you claim Christ had no lusts and desires in His flesh, you are indulging in the Omega of apostasy.

But if you claim that Christ's mind was different to us, then you are on the right track...

In both arguments Christ had to be different from us.

But claiming Christ was different because He had no sinful propensities, no lusts and sinful desires, no sin dwelling in Him, makes you an apostate...

But the interesting thing is this:

There is no explicit statement of Christ having to overcome "sin" in the Bible that I know of.

Yet many want to argue that Christ had "sin in Him".

The only reference to Christ overcoming is to temptation, not sin.

Just as Adam had to Pre-fall. Except this time Christ had to do so with the needs of a body degenerated by 1000's of years of sin.

But even in "that" body there is never a single mention of Christ having sin in it...

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Even the most radical among those who insist that Christ had a sinful nature - have had a hard time claiming that Christ's mind was morally corrupt or that he had our inward bent to sin rather than a bent toward unity with His Father.

Jesus' mind was not morally corrupt. Jesus' inward bent was toward following His Father, in much the same way as born-again believers are. Christ was really born already born again.

But you believe that Born Again believers have to accept that the fleshly lusts and desires are always there, do you not John317?

But that was not Christ's state.

Christ came so we could be lifted up into the Divine Nature.

We "receive" that nature.

We "receive" the new heart that loves God with all its might.

We "receive" the new heart that loves its neighbour as itself.

We "receive" the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who puts to death our fleshly desires and lusts as we follow Him.

We "become" like Christ was.

We receive the moral nature of Adam before the fall.

---------------

Now you say this is a "mind" thing.

But it is not merely that.

It is a "mind, heart and Holy Spirit" experience, it is a "crucified" flesh experience.

But if we do not believe that God crucifies the flesh in Christ, we will never ever gain the victory. We will just keep talking about it.

We will keep accepting the enemy in us and just rationalising the flesh away...

Because we do not enter into by faith the "true" born again experience.

Where "in Christ" our flesh with its lusts and desires have been crucified.

Where "in Christ" our new nature is imparted to us.

Where "in Christ" we have been changed.

This "living dead" experience that has taken hold of many Adventists minds is of no value to anyone whatsoever...

[skyblue888]

Some of us are not saying that Christ had sin in him but that in His flesh which He took, our sinful flesh, were liabilities to sin and yet did no sin. He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh.

He was a descendant of David according to the flesh, not sinless flesh but sinful flesh. He was tempted in all points like as we are. If he did not take our sinful flesh with all its liabilities to sin, how could he be tempted in all points like as we are?

The churches that constitute Babylon, the churches of antichrist all believe and teach that Jesus took the sinless flesh of Adam before the fall or that Jesus inherited from Mary a sinless nature because she had a sinless nature herself from her mother!!! Is that what we believe? Some of us teach that Jesus took our fallen nature only in the sense that he needed physical rest. But that is far from the reality. Jesus felt the drawings of sinful flesh just like we do. He felt the drawings of sinful flesh, and "they were urged upon him in as much greater degree as His character is superior to ours," and by the power of the Holy Spirit overcame them all and we are to overcome as He did.

To be tempted even from within by the drawing of sinful flesh is not sin. It is not sin until the temptation is indulged.

sky

[Twilight II]

Jesus felt the drawings of sinful flesh just like we do. He felt the drawings of sinful flesh.

sky

Not biblical Sky.

I know you believe this.

But there is absolutely no statement in the bible whatsoever, that states Christ had "sin in Him" that He had to overcome.

It is not there Sky.

If it is, show me and correct me.

That is why people reject it.

------------------

It is as much in the bible as the observance of Sunday is...

It is actually interesting that the same type of mindset is needed to accept both of these ideas.

The mind needs to:

1. Insist it is the truth before going to scripture.

2. Find texts that seem to support what is being said, whilst ignoring the context of the texts.

3. Make those texts state more than they do, or insist they infer the point being made.

4. Ignore those texts that plainly state the opposite of what is believed.

[skyblue888]

If you are going to quote me, quote the whole please.

Here what I wrote:

"Jesus felt the drawings of sinful flesh just like we do. He felt the drawings of sinful flesh, and 'they were urged upon him in as much greater degree as His character is superior to ours,' and by the power of the Holy Spirit overcame them all and we are to overcome as He did. To be tempted even from within by the drawings of sinful flesh is not sin. It is not sin until the temptation is indulged."

That is totally biblical unless we reject Romans 1:3 and Hebrews 2:14 and 4:15.

sky

[Twilight II]

If you are going to quote me, quote the whole please.

Here what I wrote:

"Jesus felt the drawings of sinful flesh just like we do. He felt the drawings of sinful flesh, and 'they were urged upon him in as much greater degree as His character is superior to ours,' and by the power of the Holy Spirit overcame them all and we are to overcome as He did. To be tempted even from within by the drawings of sinful flesh is not sin. It is not sin until the temptation is indulged."

That is totally biblical unless we reject Romans 1:3 and Hebrews 2:14 and 4:15.

sky

[skyblue888]

Mark, the truth is simple. On his human side, Jesus was a descendant of David according to the flesh and that is sinful flesh with all its liabilities to sin. No amount of human reasoning will ever change that.

Enough said.

sky