This is Information All SDA's Should Know Of

[Johann]

Jesus had to wrestle with something that Adam did not: An inner will in conflict with His Father's.

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42).

What is the meaning of "will" in this instance? Could it be a synonym with "desire"? In the New Testament there are about 17 different Greek words that in the KJV are translated "will".

In this verse alone there are two different Greek words for will, and they could also be translated "wish".

If the human desire had been removed from Jesus He would no longer be human.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I do believe that truly born again disciples can come to the point of living sinless lives in the sense that that will never again commit a conscious/intentional act of disobedience.

Then you are going to have to find a time before Jesus returns in which certain words of the Bible are no longer true.

"...as it is written,

“There is none righteous, not even one;

There is none who understands,

There is none who seeks for God;

All have turned aside, together they have become useless;

There is none who does good,

There is not even one.”

“Their throat is an open grave,

With their tongues they keep deceiving,”

“The poison of asps is under their lips”;

“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;

“Their feet are swift to shed blood,

Destruction and misery are in their paths,

And the path of peace they have not known.”"

Romans 3:10-17 NASB

The only way man can possibly enter into the Life Everlasting is for the Lord of glory to do the work necessary for us to receive the gift promised, otherwise it is not a gift but a reward worked for by us, in order to receive.

"[Not in your own strength] for it is God Who is all the while effectually at work in you [energizing and creating in you the power and desire], both to will and to work for His good pleasure and satisfaction and delight."Philippians 2:13 AMP Parenthesize theirs' LHC

God cares!

[joeb]

From what I've studied from the Word, as well as the SoP, I would like to suggest Jesus was born into this world as a Babe with man's (Adam's)nature before Adam sinned, and just as Adam was tempted so also was Jesus, the difference being that Adam yielded while Jesus didn't. Therefore Jesus' nature has always been spotless, whereas all of the rest of human society gained the fallen nature of Adam through genetics and had to be born again to be recreated in the likeness of the spotless Son of God, something only possible through receiving of His unfallen nature after being washed in the blood of Jesus, the Lamb without spot or wrinkle.

God cares!

I agree. Jesus was born with Adam's pre-fall spiritual nature(character and moral innocence), and with a physical nature(body) that accepted the hereditary degeneration of another 4000 years of the effects of sin.

The biggest problem with those arguing "fallen nature" here is that they seem to forget that man has two natures. One is his physical nature and the other is his spiritual nature. But, neither one of them has so far acknowledged that.

[joeb]

Quote:

I do believe that truly born again disciples can come to the point of living sinless lives in the sense that that will never again commit a conscious/intentional act of disobedience.

Then you are going to have to find a time before Jesus returns in which certain words of the Bible are no longer true.

"...as it is written,

“There is none righteous, not even one;

There is none who understands,

There is none who seeks for God;

All have turned aside, together they have become useless;

There is none who does good,

There is not even one.”

“Their throat is an open grave,

With their tongues they keep deceiving,”

“The poison of asps is under their lips”;

“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;

“Their feet are swift to shed blood,

Destruction and misery are in their paths,

And the path of peace they have not known.”"

Romans 3:10-17 NASB

The only way man can possibly enter into the Life Everlasting is for the Lord of glory to do the work necessary for us to receive the gift promised, otherwise it is not a gift but a reward worked for by us, in order to receive.

"[Not in your own strength] for it is God Who is all the while [a]effectually at work in you [energizing and creating in you the power and desire], both to will and to work for His good pleasure and satisfaction and delight."Philippians 2:13 AMP

God cares!

Actually, those verses from Romans, a requote of OT texts, is not a good argument for what you're applying them to. Notice that verse 17 says "the path of peace they have not known". That's talking about those who are not born again. Jesus says, to those who follow Him and surrender their will to Him, that He gives them His peace. IOWs, they know the path of peace.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I agree. Jesus was born with Adam's pre-fall spiritual nature(character and moral innocence), and with a physical nature(body) that accepted the hereditary degeneration of another 4000 years of the effects of sin.

The biggest problem with those arguing "fallen nature" here is that they seem to forget that man has two natures. One is his physical nature and the other is his spiritual nature. But, neither one of them has so far acknowledged that.

And the only thing I would like to add to that is that the spiritual nature takes after the prince of darkness until Jesus is invited into the life, Who then gives him/her His nature, replacing the old fallen nature which is not brought to completion until Jesus returns the second time.

"For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory."1 Corinthians 15:53-54 NASB

Hallelujah!!!!!

God cares!

[Gibs]

LifeHiscost,

I had stated in more than one post here on this, that when we come and truly repent and are born again a new man of the Spirit, Christ in you we to have that Divine Spiritual nature and are well equipped to overcome as our example Jesus Christ did.

And I postes the following quotes a bit back in this discussion,

If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was “in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God. He says, “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:8). {BLJ 55.3}

" Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those he wished to save. In him was no guile or sinfulness; he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. Clothing his divinity with humanity, that he might associate with fallen humanity, he sought to regain for man that which, by disobedience, Adam had lost for himself and for the world. In his own character he displayed to the world the character of God. He pleased not himself, but went about doing good. His whole history, for more than thirty years, was one of pure, disinterested benevolence. By his words, his influence, and his example, he made men feel that it was possible for them to return to their loyalty and be reinstated in God's favor. He led them to see that if they repented, if their characters were transformed after the divine similitude, they would win immortality. {RH, December 15, 1896 par. 7}

Notice "He pleased not Himself", He obeyed only the Spirit of the Father and we must do the same, obey only The Spirit of Christ in you, Self Must be kept down, dead of that old man!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[Guest]

You are ignoring the plainest of statements.

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. {DA 117.1}

As you can see, DA 117 plainly says He took the whole package. Physical, mental, and moral. How do you read that and then say He only took the physical?

___________________________________________________

Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. This was humiliation greater than finite man can comprehend. --The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 453.4}

..he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. {RH, December 15, 1896 par. 7}

[olger]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

You are ignoring the plainest of statements.

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. {DA 117.1}

As you can see, DA 117 plainly says He took the whole package. Physical, mental, and moral. How do you read that and then say He only took the physical?

___________________________________________________

Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. This was humiliation greater than finite man can comprehend. --The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 453.4}

..he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. {RH, December 15, 1896 par. 7}

Now I have a

g

[LifeHiscost]

___________________________________________________

Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. This was humiliation greater than finite man can comprehend. --The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 453.4}

..he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. {RH, December 15, 1896 par. 7}

I will have to admit the Word does say Jesus became sin for us. This is something I need to accept by faith, not really understanding it fully. No one will ever convince me that Jesus ever lusted after a woman as I have. He was tempted, but His nature of spotless integrity recoiled at the very possibility, unlike my character when not controlled by the Holy Spirit. If He had yielded, even by a thought, He would have had to die for His own sins and He could not have been the unblemished Lamb of God, sacrificed in our place on the cross for our sins, His death paying my penalty.

God cares!

[Gerr]

Jesus had to wrestle with something that Adam did not: An inner will in conflict with His Father's.

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42).

Sorry, my friend. Jesus had to make a choice - do God's will or not. That's exactly the same decision Adam had to contend with - do God's will or not.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

You are ignoring the plainest of statements.

You've got three fingers pointing back at you, Richard!

Quote:

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. {DA 117.1}

As you can see, DA 117 plainly says He took the whole package. Physical, mental, and moral. How do you read that and then say He only took the physical?

___________________________________________________

Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. This was humiliation greater than finite man can comprehend. --The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 453.4}

..he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. {RH, December 15, 1896 par. 7}

She is also very clear that while He took the whole package, there was ONE EXCEPTION. Remember this?

ESV | ýGe 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, ý17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He 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}

You can't take the Bible, the SOP, or any author for that matter and just take one or even two statements and build an edifice of belief on it/them while ignoring other statements. You must reconcile all the ideas expressed!!!

[Gibs]

SOP, even states it another way Gerry,

"While we were yet sinners, the Son of God died for us. Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown, and clothing His divinity with humanity, He stooped to our estate to rescue us from the thraldom of sin. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He came to this earth to take His position at the head of humanity. In our behalf He bore the stroke of divine justice. Because He was just, He became the justifier of all who believe in Him. He assumed human nature that for the transgressor He might suffer the penalty of transgression. He took the place of the sinner, and died that we might live, making His soul an offering for sin. {AUCR, April 1, 1901 par. 13}

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[joeb]

..he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. {RH, December 15, 1896 par. 7}

[Guest]

No one will ever convince me that Jesus ever lusted after a woman as I have.

No one has suggested that He ever lusted after a woman like you have.

[Guest]

You can't take the Bible, the SOP, or any author for that matter and just take one or even two statements and build an edifice of belief on it/them while ignoring other statements. You must reconcile all the ideas expressed!!!

I can reconcile, as I've said before, your quotes with mine. You cannot do the same. All you can do is throw mine out, in order to hold your current view.

You need to look at that word propensity that you love to quote. Unless you throw my quotes out and pretend they don't exist, it cannot be the end all that you think it is. Remember there are two kinds of propensities. Natural, and cultivated.

Now remember, you have to be able to make both sets of quotes work, otherwise it simply means your viewpoint is wrong.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

You can't take the Bible, the SOP, or any author for that matter and just take one or even two statements and build an edifice of belief on it/them while ignoring other statements. You must reconcile all the ideas expressed!!!

I can reconcile, as I've said before, your quotes with mine. You cannot do the same. All you can do is throw mine out, in order to hold your view.

You need to look at that word propensity that you love to quote. Unless you throw my quotes out and pretend they don't exist, it cannot be the end all that you think it is. Remember there are two kinds of propensities. Natural, and cultivated.

Now remember, you have to be able to make both sets of quotes work, otherwise it simply means your viewpoint is wrong.

LOL. Yeah, right, Richard. :<))

You claim one thing, and then another. First you make Christ out to be exactly like we are, and then deny He was. Make up your mind. Which was He? Exactly like us, or different than we are. If He was in any way different then we are your entire position falls completely apart.

[Guest]

He was different from us in that He never had any cultivated tendencies or propensities, because He never sinned. By the time WE come to Jesus, we are full of them. Bad habits galore, at least in my case.

Imagine if you didn't have any bad habits to overcome when you gave your life to Christ.It would still be in your nature to sin because of your heredity. But it would not be ingrained in you by habit.

So as long as you didn't break your connection to the almighty...

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

You can't take the Bible, the SOP, or any author for that matter and just take one or even two statements and build an edifice of belief on it/them while ignoring other statements. You must reconcile all the ideas expressed!!!

I can reconcile, as I've said before, your quotes with mine. You cannot do the same. All you can do is throw mine out, in order to hold your current view.

You need to look at that word propensity that you love to quote. Unless you throw my quotes out and pretend they don't exist, it cannot be the end all that you think it is. Remember there are two kinds of propensities. Natural, and cultivated.

Now remember, you have to be able to make both sets of quotes work, otherwise it simply means your viewpoint is wrong.

OK, I looked up the dictionary and here is the definition:

pro•pen•si•ty \pr&#601;-&#712;pen(t)-s&#601;-tç\ noun

plural -ties 1570 : an often intense natural inclination or preference

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003).Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Your tap dancing with "natural" and "cultivated" propensity does not jive with the definition. Furthermore, I don't see your response to my question. You said a newborn doesn't need a Savior until he does a sinful act. I ask you - is a baby born selfish or not? Was Jesus born selfish? If a baby is not born selfish, at what point does it become accountable for those selfish actions and needs a Savior?

You say I am ignoring the "clear" quote you provided? It is very simple to for me to reconcile the two. He took all the liabilities of degenerate humanity EXCEPT for its corrupt spiritual nature, i.e. propensity (natural inclination) to sin.

Gibs answered these questions, but I want to hear it from you.

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, were you?

Jesus was called "holy thing" at conception were you?

[Guest]

Quote:

You said a newborn doesn't need a Savior until he does a sinful act. I ask you - is a baby born selfish or not?

A baby is born totally dependent. Which some may construe as selfishness. But it's not really. At least not in any kind of sinful way.

You must believe that newborns are thinking and making decisions, from the moment they are born, Gerry.

[Gerr]

Quote:

You said a newborn doesn't need a Savior until he does a sinful act. I ask you - is a baby born selfish or not?

A baby is born totally dependent. Which some may construe as selfishness. But it's not really. At least not in any kind of sinful way.

You must believe that newborns are thinking and making decisions, from the moment they are born.

No, newborns are not yet capable of conscious decision, but the seed of corruption is already there. Like a baby born to a cocaine addicted mother, it already has the propensity to want sin.

I'm still looking for your answers to the questions I asked.

[Guest]

It is very simple to for me to reconcile the two. He took all the liabilities of degenerate humanity EXCEPT for its corrupt spiritual nature, i.e. propensity (natural inclination) to sin.

[Gerr]

Dig a little? Hmmmm! What answers have dug up to my questions?

[Guest]

No, newborns are not yet capable of conscious decision, but the seed of corruption is already there. Like a baby born to a cocaine addicted mother, it already has the propensity to want sin.

I'm still looking for your answers to the questions I asked.

Now you are just waffling. That doesn't strengthen your case, it only weakens it. Your question was, and I quote:

"I ask you - is a baby born selfish or not?"

To which I gave a solid answer. We weren't talking about whether a baby could be born addicted to cocaine or not. That's a whole nuther issue.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Now you are just waffling. That doesn't strengthen your case, it only weakens it. Your question was, and I quote:

"I ask you - is a baby born selfish or not?"

Waffling? Just because Webster's Dictionary is not an 1850 edition? Not at all! How do you know the meaning changed at all? After saying, "Be careful, EXCEEDINGLY careful," when presenting the humanity of Christ just like ourselves, she would have stated Christ had natural propensity but not a cultivated propensity to sin. That would have been exceedingly careless of her!!!

Quote:

To which I gave a solid answer. We weren't talking about whether a baby could be born addicted to cocaine or not. That's a whole nuther issue.

That is not the question I was referring to. You claim Jesus was born just like us, with a natural propensity to sin except He did not cultivate it. If He was born exactly like us, my question is/was:

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, were you?

The conceptus, Jesus, was referred to as that "holy thing," were you considered holy when you were born or conceived?

BTW, sin is like cocaine addiction passed on from mother to her baby, so it's not really "nuther issue."

[Guest]

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, were you?

The conceptus, Jesus, was referred to as that "holy thing," were you considered holy when you were born or conceived?

Of course not, but I'm not the Son of God. That's an impertinent question.

That's one of those questions that redw**d used to ask when he was contending that there is no need for obedience of any kind.

I expected more than that from you. There is an underlying reason why you would rather ask stupid questions than to be honest with yourself, and look at the evidence objectively. And I know what it is, but I'm not sure you do.

But if you want to cling to it that desperately, then go ahead.