This is Information All SDA's Should Know Of

[joeb]

I'll take that as a no. And that you are content to never learn another thing. You must already know everything, and know that all of it is right.

And, no. She said that it DID NOT sink and die. Said that would be impossible, speaking in the context of His success. She did not comment on it otherwise. But from her other statements, it sounds like maybe it could/would have. I don't know. But I'm sure you do.

I pretty much agree with what I bolded. I think context of is king, and the context of EGW's statement that Gerry quoted was that Jesus had successfully completed His mission.

[debbym]

Quote:

I heard enough to conclude that Priebe believes Jesus had the same inborn sinful propensities as we have, but I will listen some more when I have more time.

I heard Priebe this year, and it was very clear the distinction be tween us and Jesus and Adam. and the similarities.

we have fallen nature, but we also have something addition that Jesus did not have. we have all the habits, the neurological pathways of sinning to deal with.

Jesus took our human nature as it is, but the neurological pathways of sinning were never created in him, never by a thought did he consent to sin.

when we are born again, the sinless presence of God comes into our hearts to dwell. In His presence sin loses it's power, we have the promise sin shall not have dominion over you. we do not lose our fallen nature, we do not lose our neurological pathways of sin set up in us. We gain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And God begins a work in us perfecting our faith, and through faith that works by love, the Character of God starts growing in us. we then are actively choosing to will to do his will, and continually surrendering our tempted will to his. our maturity is not developed in a moment, but it progresses.when Adam and Eve lost that connection with God, they received grace and the connection between earth and heaven was restored by faith in the sacrifice to come.

the Holy Spirit began to dwell in them after the fall bringing them power to resist temptation in the presence of the power of their fallen nature.

[Guest]

Quote:

I heard enough to conclude that Priebe believes Jesus had the same inborn sinful propensities as we have, but I will listen some more when I have more time.

Don't confuse evil propensities with natural propensities...."I don't know a single person who believes that Jesus sinned or was born a sinner. Neither do I know anyone who believes that Jesus had 'sinful propensities.' But I do know many who believe that He had 'natural propensities,' just as all of us do, as a result of being born like us, with a fallen nature. Evil propensities are those leanings toward sin that have been cultivated and strengthened by indulgence in sin. Natural propensities are those leanings that have been inherited. Guilt is involved in one, but not the other. It is not sinful unless one yields to the propensity."

Ellen White talks about two different kinds of propensities in her writings. Before I had a propensity to drink alcohol, I had to develop a taste if you will, or desire for alcohol. The only way I could do this was to drink alcohol first, and discover that I liked it. Thus I developed a sinful propensity to drink alcohol.

This is the kind of propensity she was referring to when she said "He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

[Guest]

we have fallen nature, but we also have something addition that Jesus did not have. we have all the habits, the neurological pathways of sinning to deal with.

[joeb]

A propensity is a natural inclination. Jesus had no natural inclination to sin. We do.

[Guest]

A propensity is a natural inclination. Jesus had no natural inclination to sin. We do.

Then there is no way He could have been tempted like us. Heb 4:15

If I know that I hate chocolate, and you offer me some chocolate, how is that a temptation for me?

[Guest]

"The question of the nature of Christ is not a debate over certain theological fine points....Either the cleansing of the sanctuary that began in 1844 is to purify and perfect a people to stand without sin or our denomination is the result of the inability of a group of disoriented fanatics to admit that their prophetic understandings of Daniel were wrong. The real issue is upon the point of overcoming sin. If Jesus could not enter the conflict and overcome in our flesh, then we cannot."

"The view that Jesus assumed Adam's pre-Fall nature appeared only recently within our church. This position emerged in the 1950's during a series of events that saw basic Adventist concepts reformulated. The consequences of these changes have had much to do with the trauma and theological divisions the church has experienced....The study of our Lord's humanity is not 'merely academic hairsplitting.'...Why Jesus became man...can be understood only from the standpoint of the great controversy--a perspective largely missing in 'orthodox' Protestantism as well as in Catholicism....There were several issues, but none more important than Satan's charge that sons and daughters of Adam could not keep God's laws, that such laws were unrealistic and not in the best interest of created beings. Such primary issues determined the kind of humanity our Lord would assume in order to satisfy justice and silence Satan." ( Ministry , August, 1985, pp. 10-11)

[joeb]

"The question of the nature of Christ is not a debate over certain theological fine points....Either the cleansing of the sanctuary that began in 1844 is to purify and perfect a people to stand without sin or our denomination is the result of the inability of a group of disoriented fanatics to admit that their prophetic understandings of Daniel were wrong. The real issue is upon the point of overcoming sin. If Jesus could not enter the conflict and overcome in our flesh, then we cannot."

"The view that Jesus assumed Adam's pre-Fall nature appeared only recently within our church. This position emerged in the 1950's during a series of events that saw basic Adventist concepts reformulated. The consequences of these changes have had much to do with the trauma and theological divisions the church has experienced....The study of our Lord's humanity is not 'merely academic hairsplitting.'...Why Jesus became man...can be understood only from the standpoint of the great controversy--a perspective largely missing in 'orthodox' Protestantism as well as in Catholicism....There were several issues, but none more important than Satan's charge that sons and daughters of Adam could not keep God's laws, that such laws were unrealistic and not in the best interest of created beings. Such primary issues determined the kind of humanity our Lord would assume in order to satisfy justice and silence Satan." ( Ministry , August, 1985, pp. 10-11)

My answer to that is simple.

Jesus came to redeem Adam's failure. And, He came to make available to you and I His divine nature so that we might overcome our sinful nature and the devil's temptations. IOW's He came to lift us up to His level by making us partakers of His divine nature. None of this requires Him to have a fallen nature.

It's a fallacy that Christ had to have our fallen nature. You know He was tempted at least a hundred times more powerfully than we are. And, the Bible tells us that we will NOT be tempted more than we can handle. So, the claim that Jesus had an advantage over us if He didn't have our fallen spiritual nature is just not true.

Christ was human, yes. He was just as human as Adam, and as we are. But, He had to pass over the same ground Adam did to redeem his failure, and to do that He had to start in the same place Adam did.

The claim is constantly made that if someone believes Christ didn't come with our fallen spiritual nature they won't believe that Christ can give us the victory over all of our sins. Well, you know my stand on sanctification and the perfection of Christ's character within us. So, by my beliefs I show the fallacy of that argument too.

[Guest]

It's a fallacy that Christ had to have our fallen nature.

Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision He has made for it... -Letter 81, 1896. {3SM 134.2}

Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon himself our fallen nature...{7ABC 453.5}

Christ assumed our fallen nature, and was subject to every temptation to which man is subject.--Ms 80, 1903, p. 12. {17MR 29.4}

[Gerr]

Do you think you and I are naturally selfish? Was Jesus?

[Gerr]

I believe she has made it clear what is the fallen nature that He took - a degenerated body which was the result of 4000 years of genetic deterioration but without the fallen moral/spiritual nature that we have. And I think that's what DebbyM was saying to which you agreed to.

[Guest]

I believe she has made it clear what is the fallen nature that He took - a degenerated body which was the result of 4000 years of genetic deterioration but without the fallen moral/spiritual nature that we have. And I think that's what DebbyM was saying to which you agreed to.

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}

It doesn't get any plainer than this. This directly refutes what you just said.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

It's a fallacy that Christ had to have our fallen nature.

Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision He has made for it... -Letter 81, 1896. {3SM 134.2}

Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon himself our fallen nature...{7ABC 453.5}

Christ assumed our fallen nature, and was subject to every temptation to which man is subject.--Ms 80, 1903, p. 12. {17MR 29.4}

[Guest]

I don't think the quotes are dueling. Only you think that.

[joeb]

I don't think the quotes are dueling. Only you think that.

If you think Christ took a fallen spiritual nature then you cannot harmonize the quotes I gave you with your position. A fallen spiritual nature means a natural inclination to sin, which you and I are born with. It means being born selfish. Christ had no natural inclination to sin, and He was not born selfish.

[Guest]

"He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own." ( Signs of the Times , April 9, 1896) Do all children have inherited desires toward selfishness? Christ had the same "passions."

Which is why He had to pray to the Father: "Thy will, not mine."

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I believe she has made it clear what is the fallen nature that He took - a degenerated body which was the result of 4000 years of genetic deterioration but without the fallen moral/spiritual nature that we have. And I think that's what DebbyM was saying to which you agreed to.

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}

It doesn't get any plainer than this. This directly refutes what you just said.

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

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5. 1980 (F. D. Nichol, Ed.) (1128). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[Guest]

In your minds you think that what you've quoted, both of you, somehow cancels out the plain and direct statements that she made regarding this. But there is no way that it can. It doesn't cancel them at all. You see, I can reconcile what you've quoted with what I've quoted. No problem.

But you cannot reconcile mine with yours. You have to reject them outright, and discard them, and pretend they don't exist.

[joeb]

"He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own." ( Signs of the Times , April 9, 1896) Do all children have inherited desires toward selfishness? Christ had the same "passions."

Which is why He had to pray to the Father: "Thy will, not mine."

[Gail]

"He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own." ( Signs of the Times , April 9, 1896) Do all children have inherited desires toward selfishness? Christ had the same "passions."

Which is why He had to pray to the Father: "Thy will, not mine."

Whoa- when I think of my own passionate selfishness, I cringe that Jesus would be like that.

How about passion for life and dancing with joy? Children have that before life squishes it all out of them.

[Guest]

No Inclination to Sin

The first of the four major issues surrounding the human nature of Christ is whether Christ had any normal human inclinations toward sinning. In the Ministry editorial of August, 2003, it is stated that Jesus faced "all the temptations common to humans." Right here we need to consider two New Testament texts together. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." James 1:14 tells us that "every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Was Jesus really tempted like "every man is tempted," or not? The word "lust" certainly includes every man's desire for pleasure, profit, and honor. Were not the wilderness temptations of Christ designed by Satan to fulfill these basic human desires or lusts?

But we are being told today that Jesus had not the slightest desire or inclination to pride, impatience, doubt, or discouragement. If we are tempted when our inclinations or desires draw us to these things, and Jesus did not have these inclinations, then Jesus was not tempted in any of these areas as "every man is tempted."

It is often said that Christ's temptations were to use His divine powers or to abandon His mission of saving man. This is very true, but is this a sufficient reason for ignoring Hebrews 4:15? Was Jesus really tempted like we are tempted?

Let us check some inspired evidence here. In John 5:30 Jesus said, "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Why did Jesus say that He did not seek His own will? "The human will of Christ would not have led him to the wilderness of temptation....It would not have led him to endure humiliation, scorn, reproach, suffering, and death. His human nature shrank from all these things as decidedly as ours shrinks from them." ( Signs of the Times , October 29, 1894) If Christ would have followed the natural desires of His human will He would have abandoned His mission and God's plan for Him. In other words, His human will would have disobeyed God, and He had to deny His own will to do the will of His Father. Isn't this exactly like our situation? Our will and desires are naturally in opposition to the will of God, and we must surrender the exercise of our own will in order to obey God.

One inspired sentence has a wealth of meaning in it. "By experiencing in Himself the strength of Satan's temptation." ( Review and Herald , March 18, 1875) Now just where does the strength of Satan's temptations reside? "His (our) strongest temptations will come from within, for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart." ( Christ Tempted As We Are , p. 11) If our strongest temptations come from our battle against the inclinations of the natural heart, and if Christ experienced within Himself the strength of Satan's temptations, then obviously those inclinations were within Christ also. "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....He endured every trial to which we are subject." ( Desire of Ages , p. 24) Is the power of God really sufficient to overcome the inclinations of the natural heart? If Jesus did not have these inclinations, then Satan's accusations have never been answered, and our salvation is very uncertain.

"Even doubts assailed the dying Son of God." ( Testimonies , vol. 2, 209) Christ was tempted by His own thoughts not to believe His Father's promises.

"He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own." ( Signs of the Times , April 9, 1896) Do all children have inherited desires toward selfishness? Christ had the same "passions."

"The Son of God in His humanity wrestled with the very same fierce, apparently overwhelming temptations that assail man--temptations to indulgence of appetite, to presumptuous venturing where God has not led them, and to the worship of the god of this world, to sacrifice an eternity of bliss for the fascinating pleasures of this life." ( Selected Messages , vol. 1, p. 95) Are we not drawn to these things by our own desires? What makes them fierce and overwhelming is our desire for them, and here we are clearly told that Christ had the same temptations.

"He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart." ( Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 177) Just how does He know this? "He knows by experience...where lies the strength of our temptations." ( Ministry of Healing , p. 71) Without question, Jesus has experienced the strength of the inclinations of the natural heart.

In Gethsemane "His depression and discouragement left Him." ( Desire of Ages , p. 694) Was not Jesus drawn to discouragement by His own thoughts and natural inclinations?

"He had the same nature as the sinner." ( Manuscript Releases , vol. 10, p. 176) The question must be addressed --Was Adam in Eden a sinner? Is a nature partly like Adam and partly like us the same nature as sinners? The reality is that all sinners have fallen natures and are drawn strongly by them.

The difference between Christ and us is not in His being exempt from natural fallen inclinations to sin. The difference is that He did not cherish these inclinations and incorporate them into His character as we do. The temptations of the natural heart were as strong for Christ as they are for us.

No matter what words are used by pre-Fall advocates, if Christ had no natural inclinations to sin, He could not be tempted like us , and one of the major links of Christ with the fallen human race has been destroyed.

[Guest]

Partial Heredity

The second issue at stake in considering Christ's humanity is the nature of His inheritance, through Mary, of human nature. The only way that Jesus could take human nature without inheriting the "sinfulness of our sinful human heritage" is by His being exempted from some aspects of human heredity. The Holy Spirit would have to block some human genes from reaching Jesus in the normal way. In other words, Mary's genetic deficiencies were altered by the Holy Spirit so that she would pass on a totally unique heredity to Christ, completely unlike the heredity we receive from our parents.

In Romans 1:3 Paul says that Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." But we are being told that Christ was made partially but not completely of the seed of David. Ellen White is even more specific. "Like every child of Adam He 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." ( Desire of Ages , p. 49)

One of Christ's ancestors was Seth. "Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents." ( Patriarchs and Prophets , p. 80) Whatever Seth received through heredity, Jesus received through heredity. This is the only possible conclusion that can be reached from these passages, and it is due only to a preconceived assumption about the nature of sin that these statements are not accepted at face value.

Harry Johnson, in his book The Humanity of the Saviour , says it most simply and pointedly. "There is no evidence to suggest that the chain of heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus." (London, The Epworth Press, 1962, p. 44)

Protestants have historically rejected the doctrine of the immaculate conception on the basis that it is not found in Scripture. But today many Adventists teach that in the womb of Mary a special miracle was performed so that no sinful tendencies or drives would be passed from Mary to Jesus. We as a church profess to repudiate the doctrine of the immaculate conception, but at the most critical point we fall back on its explanation for Jesus' birth. While we reject Mary's sinlessness, and we reject the teaching that Mary passed nothing on to Jesus through heredity, we eagerly accept a partial blockage of the hereditary line when it comes to desires and tendencies. This is simply a modified and more subtle version of the immaculate conception. Are we really sure that we are out of the Church of Rome? Our current teaching is a direct descendant in the theological line of the immaculate conception.

[Guest]

Where's Gibs? Something must be wrong.

[Guest]

Sinful Nature Equals Sin

The third issue is the real problem at the heart of all discussions of the human nature of Christ. Does having a sinful nature make one a sinner and in need of a Saviour? If this issue could be resolved, we would have no more disagreements over the humanity of Christ.

The editor of the Adventist Review , William Johnsson , expressed his view very clearly. "Some arguments go on and on because the antagonists never get to the real issue--the underlying concern behind the surface debate....The issue behind the issue is the concept of sin. Those who want to understand more clearly Jesus' human nature would get further if they stopped debating whether Jesus came in humanity's pre-Fall or post-Fall nature and spent time looking at what the Bible says about sin itself....Not only are our acts sinful; our very nature is at war with God. Did Jesus have such a nature? No. If He had, He would Himself need a Saviour. He had...no warping of His moral nature that predisposed Him to temptation." (August 26, 1993, p. 4)

Richard Taylor put it very well in his book, A Right Conception of Sin . "One who does not have correct views of sin is not apt to have correct views of any other fundamental question. This will especially be manifest in regard to his theory of the atonement and God's method of redeeming man." (Beacon Hill Press, 1945, pp. 9-11)

The doctrine of original sin, held by Johnsson and many others in Adventism, twists every aspect of the gospel and the atonement, so that nothing survives intact. It is gradually becoming the dominant view among Adventists, even among those faithful to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. It is now believed by some who are trusted by loyal, careful Adventist laypeople.

One of the reasons that this subject has seemed so confusing is because of a lack of simple definitions. There is a crucial difference between the effects of sin and sin itself. Although the effects of sin are far-reaching and ultimately lethal, no one ascribes personal guilt or condemnation to the effects of sin. On the other hand, the concept of sin is associated with guilt, condemnation, separation from God, judgment, and the second death. Our focus, as we discuss righteousness by faith or the nature of Christ, must be on sin itself rather than the effects of sin. Our basic question here is simple. Is fallen nature part of sin itself, or is it one of the effects of sin? Our conclusions regarding the nature of Christ will be determined by the answer we give to this simple question.

To say that all babies need a Saviour has become one of the most misleading clichés in current thinking on righteousness by faith. Yes, a baby needs a Saviour, a suffering planet needs a Saviour, blind men and lame men need a Saviour, but not in the sense of personal forgiveness for personal sin and guilt. Once again, we are confusing the effects of sin and sin itself.

James 4:17 tells us that "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The clearest texts describing sin say nothing of fallen nature being an inevitable, ongoing state of sin. To say that sin is nature is to say that we are sinning even when we are choosing not to sin. Could it be that this understanding of sin as something inevitable and ongoing has greatly dulled our sensitivity to real sin (transgression of God's law) so that now we have come to accept specific transgressions as simply expressions of the greater sin of having a fallen nature? In other words, we have come to accept sinning as a normal part of life and even Christian life. We have even started calling fallen nature SIN and acts of sin "sins."

Isaiah 59:2 tells us that "your iniquities have separated between you and your God." It is sin that separates us from God, that breaks our relationship with Him, rather than the other way around. Yes, sin is indeed a state, but it follows the decision to sin against God, and it continues as long as the heart remains unrepentant.

Those who want to prove that fallen nature is sin itself rather than an effect of sin have simply not proved their case. Being born into this world means that we are subject to hunger and thirst, weariness and pain, suffering and death. It means that the planet we live on may try to destroy us. It means being born by sinful parents, receiving a sinful nature, and living in a sinful environment. But it does not mean being born guilty of sin or condemned. Although we receive all of the effects of sin, including a fallen nature, we are not automatically guilty of sin.

The conclusion that a man is a sinner by nature does not come from the Bible or Adventism. Its roots reach back to Augustine in the Roman Catholic Church, and it has been transmitted to mainline Protestantism through the writings of Luther and Calvin. Today evangelical Protestants champion this view of sin, and they have been quite eager to see this view become part of Adventism. The evangelical view of sin is accepted within the highest levels of Adventist scholarship today. One wonders, when will we go back to infant baptism, which is the only logical solution for being born in need of a Saviour?

The evangelical position on sin makes it impossible to accept the long-standing Adventist position that Christ took our very nature of sin, triumphing over sin in that dangerous nature. Because of the evangelical position on sin, we are being told that Christ could not be our Substitute if He really took our fallen nature from birth, and we are now forced to devise rather complicated devices to allow Christ to take part of human heredity while being exempted from certain hereditary traits.

It might be well to note one point in regard to being born "in sin." In Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, page 60, Seth was "born in sin." When Ellen White developed this more fully in Patriarchs and Prophets , p. 80, Seth "inherited fallen nature." This parallel passage shows what Ellen White meant by being "born in sin."

[Guest]

No Sinless Perfection

The fourth issue may be the underlying motivation for all the emphasis in recent years on Christ's unfallen or partly fallen nature. In the Ministry editorial at the beginning of this paper are these thoughts. "The soul mate of the 'nature of Christ' issue...is the question, of course, of the role of Christ's imparted sinless perfection, worked out in the heart and behavior of the Christian believer by faith....These particular issues...are particularly potent in the Adventist mind and heart when coupled with the close of 'probation,' the final judgment, and the second coming of Christ." (August, 2003, p. 4)

We quoted statements earlier in this paper that sinless perfection is impossible because of our sinful nature, and that saving grace must be available until Jesus comes because we will never be sinless. Woodrow Whidden put it this way. "Will our nature and performance ever become so sinless this side of glorification (even after the close of probation) that we will cease to need the constant justifying merits of Jesus? Do we really take Ellen White seriously when she says the believers' 'unavoidable deficiencies' are made up for them by the 'imputed' righteousness of Christ and that 'Jesus loves His children, even if they err'?...Isn't perfection primarily an attitude rather than a performance?" ( Ministry , October, 1993)

Might it not be relevant right here to take another look at 1 Peter 2:21,22? "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."

Ellen White presses home the same theme. "If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper....His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern." ( Review and Herald , February 18, 1890)

By accepting the evangelical doctrine that the atonement was completed at the cross and that Jesus was born with the sinless human nature of Adam before the Fall, most of our church pulpits no longer tell us that Jesus is our Example in overcoming all temptation and sin. Therefore, the sanctuary message is no longer relevant, and the warning message of the three angels' messages of Revelation 14 is no longer relevant to God's plan of salvation. We can then be saved in our sins, character development is no longer necessary, the commandments of God cannot be kept perfectly by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Prophecy is considered an irrelevant antique of the nineteenth century, and the seventh-day Sabbath is not kept according to Isaiah 58:13.

William Johnsson shared a powerful story in one of his editorials. "Dr. Paul Brand, who pioneered restorative surgery for lepers, tells of an epidemic of measles that struck Vellore in south India, where the Brand family was then living. The Brands had an infant daughter, Estelle, and because of her age she was exposed to high risk. The pediatrician explained that convalescent serum--serum from a person who had contracted measles and had overcome it--would protect the little girl. Word went around Vellore that the Brands needed the 'blood of an overcomer.' 'It was no use finding somebody who had conquered chicken pox or had recovered from a broken leg. Such people, albeit healthy, could not give the specific help we needed to overcome measles. We needed someone who had experienced measles and had defeated that disease,' writes Brand in his book In His image . The Brands located such a person, took out some of his blood, and injected their daughter with the convalescent serum. Armed with the 'borrowed' antibodies, their daughter fought off the invading disease. The injected serum gave her body time to manufacture her own antibodies. Estelle overcame measles--not by her own body's strength, but as the result of a battle that had taken place previously within someone else." ( Adventist Review , April 13, 1989)

I don't think that I have ever seen a better illustration of why Jesus had to come in our fallen nature. Because He has experienced fallen nature and defeated it, we can borrow His antibodies and defeat our fallen nature. And this from an editor who believes that Christ had an unfallen nature!!

Let us take a brief look at some of the inspired evidence that Christ's example proves that the final generation will actually live sinless lives, contrary to what our "experts" are telling us.

"He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life." ( Desire of Ages , p. 49)

"He sent His Son to this world to bear the penalty of sin, and to show man how to live a sinless life." ( Reflecting Christ , p. 37)

"He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in His power His people might also live lives of sinlessness." ( Review and Herald , April 1, 1902)

"He placed us on vantage ground, where we could live pure, sinless lives." ( Signs of the Times , June 17, 1903)

"Every one who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." ( Signs of the Times , July 23, 1902)

"Christ has left us a perfect, sinless example. His followers are to walk in His footsteps." ( Sons and Daughters of God , p. 294)

"Christ's life is a revelation of what fallen human beings may become through union and fellowship with the divine nature." ( Manuscript Releases , vol. 18, p. 331)

"The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome....His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin." ( Ministry of Healing , p. 180)

"God did for us the very best thing that He could do when He sent from heaven a sinless Being to manifest to this world of sin what those who are saved must be in character--pure, holy, and undefiled." ( Manuscript Releases , vol. 9, p. 125)

"Christ came to the earth...to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement." ( Signs of the Times , June 9, 1898)

"Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become." ( Selected Messages , vol. 3, p. 134)

"Brethren and sisters, we need the reformation that all who are redeemed must have, through the cleansing of mind and heart from every taint of sin." ( Counsels on Health , p. 633)

"We are cleansed from all sin, all defects of character. We need not retain one sinful propensity." ( Review and Herald , April 24, 1900)

"Every hereditary and cultivated tendency to sin must be seen, subdued, and cleansed." ( Signs of the Times , July 18, 1895)

"They will hate sin and iniquity, even as Christ hated sin." ( Faith and Works , p. 115)

"When we know God as it is our privilege to know Him, our life will be a life of continual obedience. Through an appreciation of the character of Christ, through communion with God, sin will become hateful to us." ( Desire of Ages , p. 668)

"They would hate sin with a perfect hatred." ( Fundamentals of Christian Education , p. 291)