SDA comment on 1John 3:5 "no principle of sin" was found in Christ's human nature?

[Slawek G]

Hello everyone, I have just read the SDA comment on 1John 3:5 in which the author claims that "no principle of sin" was found in Christ's human nature.

The used in the comment term "principle of sin" obviously refers to the "law of sin" or "sin" singular which dwells in us, is the core of our sinful nature and the root of our sins [it is like a bad tree producing rotten fruits]. This invented by Lucifer principle of sin and selfishness is the key cause the law condemns us all to eternal death as soon as we are born and therefore in order to save us legally Christ had to took it, overcome and let God to condemn it and destroy in Christ's flesh on the tree.

Let me know what you think but i am certain John couldn't mean that in Christ corporate sinful human nature He took, there was no law of sin included as otherwise Christ wouldn't overcome it on our behalf and He couldn't carry that principle of sin in Him to the cross to be condemned and destroyed by God in Christ on the cross, according to Romans 8:3. 

The context of John’s statement indicates that “sin” here means sinning—not the human nature Christ “took.” The preceding sentence in this verse reads: “And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins [plural, referring to our acts of sin].” Christ did not commit even one single sin, but He came to take away our many sins. He did this, of course, by taking our sinful, corporate humanity [including the law of sin] to Himself and executing it on the cross.

MORE ON THIS - Saviour of the World | Salvation1

SDA comment on 1John 3:5: "In Christ there is neither the principle of sin nor the act of sin. John uses the present tense to emphasize that sin has never had any part in Christ’s life, either on earth or in heaven. Jesus was tempted, but temptation in itself does not defile. A man is defiled only when he yields to temptation. Our Saviour was aware of the temptations that pressed upon Him from every side (Heb. 4:15), but never for a moment did He allow His thought to go against the will of His Father. Sin constantly surrounded Him, it oppressed Him throughout His earthly life; yet it found no response in Him (John 14:30). The Sinless One was made sin for us (see on 2 Cor. 5:21). He was accounted a transgressor (Isa. 53:12) and treated as the vilest sinner, but through no sin of His own." Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1980). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 7, p. 651). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[Kevin H]

There are two or three understandings you will find argued among Seventh-day Adventists. Some who see Jesus as more our example wants Jesus to have the sinful nature and gain victory over it. They say that Jesus had the nature of Adam after the fall. Others who see Jesus as more our substitute sees any of this as making Jesus ineligible to be the perfect sacrifice in our behalf, and sees him as havint the nature of Adam before the fall.. The church argued over this for centuries and formed a third view, which sadly has been divided over the book "Questions on Doctrine"  and also there has been a growing in other churches of having forgot what the church came to and held for the past several centuries and are falling into these two camps that Adventism has sadly fallen into. 

Many (not all) of our pioneers questioned the trinity. Due to this there was not much interest in this question until the 1890s when the trinity started moving from the periphery, as an unpopular option that you could believe, to a more central role. Mrs. White at this time began quoting from theologians who have been teaching the traditional view. There was one, I don't remember his name, but it has reminded me of the name of the author Herman Melville. The writer she quotes has given fantastic descriptions of the traditional view, and Mrs. White picks some of his best statements. Sadly, those who want Jesus to have and gain victory over the sinful nature have written books trying to make Mrs. White's quotes on this topic fit their view. 

This traditional view says that Jesus has the weakness that sin brings, he could get hungry, sleepy, maybe suffer from colds etc. but did not have the propensity for sin. This view sees Jesus as having his own unique nature, and not the nature of Adam after the fall, nor Adam before the fall, although there were elements of both included in his unique nature. We are sinners because of our sinful nature. For some studies on this understanding may I recommend:

https://www.americanchristianministries.org/index.php/our-sinless-yet-sympathetic-savior-mp3s.html

https://www.americanchristianministries.org/index.php/preparing-for-the-latter-rain-21835.html

https://www.americanchristianministries.org/index.php/god-s-spiritual-gifts-for-the-remnant.html

There are also recordings from John Wood at Atlantic Union college especially if you can find recordings of his "Spirit of Prophecy Class" which studies this in Mrs. White's writings. 

I like the words of Mrs. White in the communion chapter of the Desire of Ages  and a quote from poet/philosopher Eli Siegel as descriptions/definitions of the sinful nature. Mrs. White's quote says "there is in man a disposition to esteem himself more highly than his breathern, to serve self to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit." Mr. Siegel's quote is "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world."  Jesus had the same frailties that we have but he in no way had this disposition.  Satan needed to modify Jesus' temptations to deal with the lack of this disposition in his nature. 

I hope this helps!

[BlessedMan]

On 3/9/2021 at 4:40 AM, Slawek G said:

Let me know what you think but i am certain John couldn't mean that in Christ corporate sinful human nature He took, there was no law of sin included as otherwise Christ wouldn't overcome it on our behalf and He couldn't carry that principle of sin in Him to the cross to be condemned and destroyed by God in Christ on the cross, according to Romans 8:3. 

I am struggling to decipher what you actually mean by this comment. I would like to see a little more explanation on this point so I can comprehend what you are saying here

This is how the NKJV cites the text of Romans 8:3

Quote

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

I, for example, do not see anything in this verse that says "the law of sin." Sin, in the usual "corporate" sense, would perhaps not involve "a law of sin" half as much as it indicates a condition or nature of humans in general; which Jesus did not inherit in any way. He had a very different "nature." And I doubt that "nature" here would refer to physical Substance of Christ.

This text of Romans 8:3 only states that "the law could not do..." because of our "sinful flesh." It does not call this "the law of sin. The Law; being a transcript of God's character, cannot possibly be "a law of sin. Its just that when we break that law, we choose to sin, and the law acts as a "mirror" of sorts to reflect our true nature. And the character of what we do or don't do. Breaking God's Law is sin if we choose to do that. But its not a law of sin. Its simply "the law of God."

Jesus was sent, according to Romans 8:3 ONLY "in the likeness" of sinful flesh. NOT as a replica.  But the Bible also reflects that Jesus used the same methods and means to "fulfill" His law showing us how to live as well. Jesus had to depend upon The Father, just the same as we need to do today. His experience is to be ours in this regard.

While the "principle of sin" and the "act of sin" may sound quite distinguished, there is no reason to try and use English Grammar, in the words of FD Nicho,l in the above cited commentary, to try to accurately define Biblical language, grammar, or intent. Its simply not ever a good Bible study habit to get into.

[BlessedMan]

On 3/9/2021 at 4:40 AM, Slawek G said:

Let me know what you think but i am certain John couldn't mean that in Christ corporate sinful human nature He took, there was no law of sin included as otherwise Christ wouldn't overcome it on our behalf and He couldn't carry that principle of sin in Him to the cross to be condemned and destroyed by God in Christ on the cross, according to Romans 8:3.

There are quite a few problems with this kind of statement. Here is how Romans 8:3 reads:

Quote

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

We must note that scripture does not support your statement of "sinning" because it actually, just reads "sin."  Additionally, using an isolated quote, often makes it out of context, which is what I see happening here. The stated context is "sin" not "sinning."

IF indeed it was talking about "corporate" accountability/sin then it would fly in the face of other, very clear scripture:

Quote

Eze 14:20  even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live," says the Lord GOD, "they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness."

We are only accountable for our own personal sin, and sins/sinning. I am not responsible for your's, nor are you responsible for mine.

Contrary to your other statement that the cross wasn't quite enough, (for "sinning") this is exactly why Paul states:
 

Quote

 

Gal 6:14  But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

1Co 2:2  For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

 

For the Christian who believes in the Bible alone for proving "truth" the cross was, is and always will be enough. Out of all the various truths/doctrines in the Bible, there is one, main, central truth, that of "Christ and Him crucified." All other truths are invested with POWER and INFLUENCE, according to their relation to THIS theme.

Paul could have overwhelmed his listeners with intellectual arguments. Instead, he shared the simple message of Jesus Christ by allowing the Holy Spirit to guide his words. In sharing the Good News with others, we should follow Paul's example and keep our message simple and basic. The Holy Spirit will give power to our words and use them to bring glory to Jesus.

1Co 2:3  I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4  And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5  that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

On 3/9/2021 at 4:40 AM, Slawek G said:

The context of John’s statement indicates that “sin” here means sinning—not the human nature Christ “took.”

"In the LIKENESS of sinful flesh is what Romans 8:3 tells us. THAT does not mean a replica of "sinful flesh." In fact, "sinful flesh" does refer to "sin" as in our nature. Jesus took on our sinful human nature, that we might have His sinless divine nature. We are "joint heirs" with Christ, according to Romans 8:17.

On 3/9/2021 at 4:40 AM, Slawek G said:

The context of John’s statement indicates that “sin” here means sinning—not the human nature Christ “took.” The preceding sentence in this verse reads: “And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins [plural, referring to our acts of sin].”

We have to be very careful in trying to make "Bible truths" out of the Bible's use of plural or singular forms of a given word:

Quote

Joh 1:29  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John 1;29 is clearly singular, but what is needed is context from both surrounding and/or related Bible texts:

Quote

Neh_8:8  So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.

The intended "sense" or context in Scripture for "Christ, and Him crucified" is always that "the cross IS enough."