| Author | Message | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Bill and Y'all, Here's a new thread for you. There have been a few post's regarding this, but no specific threads. I, like many others here, deal with people that believe the heresy of Christ having a "sinful" nature. I'm just simply not well enough armed with truth yet to deal with it. I DO want to deal with it though! If you would like to post some beginner level short studies on it, I would really appreciate it. I have a very dear friend that I would like to share the TRUTH of Christ nature with. Maryann | ||
| Colleentinker |
Maryann, I'm enjoying your posts! Christ's nature has made sense to me only since I've understood that we actually have a spirit that's not physical. I grew up believing that Jesus had Mary's sinful nature, i.e. inherited tendencies to sin. (Genetic defects, if you will, that predispose humans to selfishness, kleptomania, pyromania, lying, and immorality, etc.) But because he was also God, I thought, somehow his "sinful nature" was kept in check during his childhood before his "age of accountalitily". (Remember that Ellenism?) When he became mature, he could avoid sin because he did not have sinful habits worked into his nervous system, and he was free to choose to resist sin. (My goodness, I haven't thought that through in years! What convolution!) I now believe that sin is actually a dead soul, or a dead spirit. Our sinful inheritance is actually a spirit severed from God. We are literally born dead. We are born lost; we are born sinful and separated from God. It's not about physical genetic codes and sinful tendencies; it's about spiritual life and death which is quite different from physical life and death. Sin is not about actions; it's about connection with God! Actions are merely an outgrowth of the soulódead or alive. To say Jesus was born with a sinful nature is to say that he was born with a dead soul, or spirit. It is to say that Jesus was born separated from God. That is heresy! Jesus was God, and he was born one with God. He was not born a sinner! If Jesus was really born with a sinful nature, he had to be born a sinner. The Bible is clear that the legacy of Adam to humankind is death (As in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made aliveÖ I Cor. 15:22) If Jesus was born with a sinful nature, he could not have been God. If we say Jesus did not have a sinful nature, we destroy the Adventist argument that he was our example, that we to can avoid sin. But the Bible is clear that Jesus was our substitute, not our example. He came to show us the Father; he came to fulfill the law. He came to die for our sins; he came to rise from the dead. He did not come to prove that we can resist sin. He came to resist sin for us! Praise God that Jesus was born with a living soulóconnected to God, full of the life that he breathed into Adam and Eve at creationÖfull of the life that the Holy Spirit now breathes into us! Only a Jesus with a living soul could die for our sins. Only a truly sinless oneóa living oneócould die a redemptive death. The teaching that Jesus was born with a sinful nature is a heresy that makes Jesus to be less than God. Praise Jesus that he is God! | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Amen, Colleen! By God's grace you are a great theologian. I always learn from you. Bless you, Jude | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Colleen, My server has been down all evening! This really makes sense to me. You said: "I now believe that sin is actually a dead soul, or a dead spirit. Our sinful inheritance is actually a spirit severed from God. We are literally born dead." Then: "To say Jesus was born with a sinful nature is to say that he was born with a dead soul, or spirit. It is to say that Jesus was born separated from God. That is heresy! Jesus was God, and he was born one with God. He was not born a sinner!" How much cleared can it get? Then: "If Jesus was really born with a sinful nature, he had to be born a sinner. The Bible is clear that the legacy of Adam to humankind is death (As in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made aliveÖ I Cor. 15:22) If Jesus was born with a sinful nature, he could not have been God." Where am I getting this "example" re-memory? Oh yeh, "Councels On How To Perfect Through The Sinful Nature of Jesus pg.144,000". But I still have to think about this one: "But the Bible is clear that Jesus was our substitute, not our example." I'm thankful that: "He did not come to prove that we can resist sin. He came to resist sin for us!" Our only hope: "Praise God that Jesus was born with a living soulóconnected to God, full of the life that he breathed into Adam and Eve at creationÖfull of the life that the Holy Spirit now breathes into us! Only a Jesus with a living soul could die for our sins. Only a truly sinless oneóa living oneócould die a redemptive death." Agreed: "The teaching that Jesus was born with a sinful nature is a heresy that makes Jesus to be less than God." Sooooooo, goooood! Anymore, anyone? Bill? Maryann | ||
| Bill Twisse |
I have posted on other subjects that the doctrine of Christ's fallen human nature was invented by Edward Irving in Scotland. He was stripped of his pastoral credentials by the Church of Scotland for his heresy. The SDA doctrine of Christ's fallen human nature was absolutely and totally plagiarized from Edward Irving and his publication 'The Morning Watch.' William Miller also plagiarized his 1844 date and the notion of the 'cleansing of the sanctuary' from the same source. In June of 1830, the Morning Watch published the whole theory of the 2300 days beginning with the degree of Artaxerxes and ending in approx. 1844-1847 A.D. As far as I know, L.E. Froom had to admit this fact in his massive work "The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers." --Twisse | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Thanks, Maryann, for your positive Christian spirit. I have an additional question to pose: Was Christ's human nature that of Adam before the fall? Many 'evangelical SDA' reformists like to quote the Baker letter of EGW in 1905 to support the fact that she believed in Christ's sinless human nature. In actual fact, that letter is a definite change from the earlier SDA position outlined in the Desire of Ages and the Great Controversy. But many refuse to believe that any change of view ever took place. However, I would propose that a correct view of Christ's human nature would deny the 1905 position as much as that of Edward Irving. Christ, as God, could not have sinned. His human nature had absolutely no impulse to sin. Adam had an impulse to sin at some point in his experience or he would not have given in. So it is improper to compare Adam to Christ in this regard. A classic treatment on the impeccability of Christ's human nature is found in Shedd's Dogmatic Theology. It is available to read in seminary libraries or available for purchase through some Christian book services. Shedd, although inconsistent in his treatment of Adam's human nature, is the most excellent I have ever read on his treatment of Christ's impeccable human nature. It is classic and doesn't exist anywhere else. I have tried to find it. --Twisse | ||
| Steve |
Hi Bill, I had always been a little uncomfortable with the frequent comparisons between Christ and Adam. But your post makes me more than a "little" uncomfortable. Primarily because of the fact that Jesus was God Himself in human flesh. Of course, that's something I had always believed, but now I realize that I never gave Jesus His proper place. He could never be like Adam, before or after the fall. Only as Paul compares our guilt or our righteousness in the First Adam and the Second Adam, can we "compare" the two. But they really have no comparison. One was fully and only human, the Other was not only fully human, but fully God. Thank you for helping steer me, personally, away from that so-called "Evangelical Adventism". I've really been seeing it for what it really is. God Bless, Steve | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Colleen says: "To say Jesus was born with a sinful nature is to say that he was born with a dead soul, or spirit. It is to say that Jesus was born separated from God. That is heresy! Jesus was God, and he was born one with God. He was not born a sinner! If Jesus was really born with a sinful nature, he had to be born a sinner. The Bible is clear that the legacy of Adam to humankind is death (As in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made aliveÖ I Cor. 15:22) If Jesus was born with a sinful nature, he could not have been God. If we say Jesus did not have a sinful nature, we destroy the Adventist argument that he was our example, that we to can avoid sin. But the Bible is clear that Jesus was our substitute, not our example. He came to show us the Father; he came to fulfill the law. He came to die for our sins; he came to rise from the dead. He did not come to prove that we can resist sin. He came to resist sin for us!" Really excellent words and thoughts! --Twisse | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Bill and Steve, You guys are going on about this nature of Jesus and now I'm confussed! I thought that Jesus had the "same" nature of Adam "before" the fall? After all, wasn't Adam created in the image of God? If Adam wasn't created in the image of God, then I could understand this. If Jesus COULD NOT sin, what was the point of the exercise????????? If Jesus COULD NOT sin, what was the point of Satan tempting Him??????????? If Jesus COULD NOT sin, what was the point of His coming to this earth? He could have done the whole thing from heaven then! I'm NOT being frivolous, I'm serious as a heart attack! Jesus was tempted in all things as us, yet with out sin? It doesn't say without the ability to sin? Do I still, after 25 years, have a bit of EGW running though my veins? Yuk! Confusedly......Maryann | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Maryann, you state: "If Adam wasn't created in the image of God, then I could understand this. If Jesus COULD NOT sin, what was the point of the exercise????????? If Jesus COULD NOT sin, what was the point of Satan tempting Him??????????? If Jesus COULD NOT sin, what was the point of His coming to this earth? He could have done the whole thing from heaven then! I'm NOT being frivolous, I'm serious as a heart attack! Jesus was tempted in all things as us, yet with out sin? It doesn't say without the ability to sin?" I believe that your heart is in the right place and that you are asking the right questions. What does it mean that Adam was created in the image of God? This is a question that has stumped theolgians (& everyone) for centuries. I think that most of us have assumed that it means he was created in perfect holiness. I won't criticize that idea directly. I will simply state that Adam must have had sinful impulses prior to eating of the forbidden fruit. We know that the 'image of God' could not mean that Adam had the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, perfect holiness, existence before created time & space, etc. So what does it mean? Adam had several godlike characteristics, given by the Creator, that distinguished him from other created beings: 1. The need for plural existence. Since God is plural (a Trinity) and not merely singular, Adam needed a helper to be complete. Some would object that the animals have this same characteristic. However, most creatures in the animal kingdom do not mate except for a short time. Man is incomplete without a permanent mate. The only exception to this rule are those 'few' (very few) that are able to accept the call to celibacy. I, being like most humans, can't imagine how that is possible. 2. Man, unlike other creatures on Earth, is created with a level of moral consciousness that makes him accountable to God. Most importantly (and the real point), 3. Man is created with eternal existence in the future. If point #1 seems weak, let's focus on this one. It is the real meaning of 'image of God.' The other created beings die and do not live again. Man has to face God after death and spend eternity in one place or the other! As far as the future is concerned, man's eternity is very much like that of God's! He is created for immortality. I know this notion is very un-Adventist. But the whole of scriptural revelation is in harmony with it. We can discuss the full implications of this as time goes on. On the issue of Christ's temptations, where does scripture ever indicate that he could have sinned? It does not. The fact that he was tempted by the devil to the 'fullest extent' (a better translation than 'all things'), like we are, does not mean that he ever wanted to engage in it. We have to take into account that Jesus was the eternal God when proposing anything about the human nature that he 'added to himself.' God cannot sin and we should not venture onto the dangerous ground of thinking that he could. If Jesus could have failed at his first coming, maybe we will now fail him and there will be no final coming or eternal life! After all, do we not have 'free-will'? Maybe 144,000 won't 'choose' to get holy. The SDA's get very upset when I make that statement. God's purpose in the temptations of Christ was to make a fool out of Satan. Satan was so stupid as to think that he could defeat God's plans. God proved him wrong before the universe. The person who suffers the most in temptation is the one who is absolutely committed to not giving-in. The person with impulses toward accepting the 'sales-pitch' of the devil does not suffer as much. The fact that Christ had an invincible determination to resist sin is why he 'suffered being tempted,' to the greatest extreme possible. He resisted unto blood. Christ's purpose in coming to this Earth was to make atonement for our sins, rise again, and disarm the devil for eternity! His death makes him our Savior, his resurrection and exaltation makes him our Lord! --Twisse | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Bill, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! You said: "We know that the 'image of God' could not mean that Adam had the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, perfect holiness, existence before created time & space, etc. So what does it mean?" I knew I was going to get hammered on that one. Jude hammered me on that one to some time ago too! This is why I wear a hard hat when when I read both your's and Jude's post's. That way I can somewhat preserve the shape of my soft head! (Ment funny! I want to see you smile as I never have seen you smile in any of your post's. So smile. I am!) Seriously now. After reading your above post, I feel as if I'm in the middle of the ocean with a soggy life jacket, trying to spit up Jonah's whale! You said: "We have to take into account that Jesus was the eternal God when proposing anything about the human nature that he 'added to himself.' God cannot sin and we should not venture onto the dangerous ground of thinking that he could." Hmmmmmm. Good point! This is still to new to me to even think straight. Soooo, I wont even try, YET. Just keep on going with your post's. Please! You said: "The person who suffers the most in temptation is the one who is absolutely committed to not giving-in. The person with impulses toward accepting the 'sales-pitch' of the devil does not suffer as much." I, respectfully disagree. For me at least personally, I used to be tormented with certain temptations. Now that, I turned them over to Jesus, and made a conscious decision to toss it, it is almost a ZERO issue now? I'm NOT accepting the "sales-pitch" nor the impulses. I'm not giving the devil any credit. He can go fly a kite! I'm very interested in continuing this line! With hard hat on :-), Maryann | ||
| Steve |
Maryann, Perhaps a thought about what Bill means by the person who would not sin suffering more than the one that would sin. When you are aware of a situation, a sales pitch, or a specific error that is being promoted, you can watch people around react to that. You may not be tempted in that particular area at all. I know there are some things that are not a problem for me (I said SOME things). When you see that error being promoted, does it not cut you to the heart to see others falling for that error? I know that when I see people having problems with things with which I don't have a problem with, it really hurts my heart to see how easily some people fall for those things. In that sense, Jesus must have (and still does) grieve (I know "grieve" is probably a human way of understanding) much when He sees us stumbling and falling over things that He never had an inkling of an urge to fall for. But when He sees us tripping, stumbling, and falling over things . . . well, I can only imagine, it must be an incredible emotional experience for Him. And remember, His emotions are All Powerful emotions, and All Knowing emotions, and Infinite emotions. What He must "feel" for us when He sees us having difficulties with things goes way way beyond what we could ever imagine. For me, that's why it's so important to recognize the Almighty Divinity of Jesus. Because that puts His emotions, thoughts, etc. on an infinitely far superior plane than ours. When we understand that, then thinking that He could not sin just seems to make so much more sense. I don't know if I've shed any light on this, or muddled the waters. But this is beginning to make more sense to me because of what Bill has been posting. Bill, I thank God for you, and look forward to continuing dialogue with you. In His Grace, Steve | ||
| Colleentinker |
Billóthank you for a great post. MaryannóI used to wonder: if Jesus couldn't have sinned, what on earth did his death mean? It seemed to me that he couldn't have really been my substitute if he wasn't "like me" only perfect. I've come to see it this way. (Bear with me; I'll try to put a somewhat abstract "picture" into words!) Jesus became a human because that was the only way he could actually show us the truth about the Father. Humanity had a completely warped understanding of who God was, what He expected of them, and how they were to relate to him. We needed a tangible experience to make clear what and who God is. Jesus came to live a life that had been his intent for humanity. He came to show us the Father. But "redeeming" our physical lives was only a portion of what Jesus came to do. He came to completley disarm Satan and break the power of sin. It was not the humanity of Jesus that broke sin's power. It was the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is our Creator. Through him come all things. (I Cor. 8:6) Jesus is not only the creator of humans, but he is the creator of the universeóincluding the original unfallen Satan. Only the creator has the authority to deal with the life and death of his creations. Only Jesus had the power and authority to heal the rift of sin and mete out punishment to the originator of sin. Only the death of actual God could redeem us from the inevitability of eternal death. Only the sacrifice of the ultimate source of life could justify pulling us out of the penalty of being cut off from God. Jesus had to be God. Yes, he has permanently linked himself to our humanity; he is forever our "elder brother". But our lives and our salvation we owe to Jesus our God, our Creator, our Redeemer. His death would have been meaningless and powerless if he hadn't been fully God. Although he was God, he couldn't have redeemed us from heaven. Sin has permanent, physical results. The law of the universe says, "The wages of sin is death." Only the death of the perfect Creator could undo the effects of sin. For reasons which are not fully clear, it was not enough for him to simply "forgive" us. That would have made sin and grace "cheap". He had to shed blood. Paul says there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. He had to die, and he had to be perfectly God in order for his death to be redemptive. Jesus' ability to sin or not to sin ends up being not really the central question. The real issue is, God, the source of life, our Creator, the one in whom was no sin, BECAME SIN for us and died so that we could become the righteousness of Christ. Yes, Jesus had to have a sinless nature. He had to be born alive, with a living soul. Yes, he had to be human in order to bring the reality of God to mankind. And yes, he had to be fully God in order to die the ultimate death and rise again so we can have ultimate life with him. I'm not sure if this helps, Maryann. There is mystery in the truth of salvation. But I know that our Redeemer could only give us life by being perfectly, sinlessly God and dying the death of a sinner. I praise Him! | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi, Maryann, Thought I'd weigh in here with my two cents (mixed metaphor?). Only to point out that God did not create us in order to have someone to praise and serve and worship him. Why not? That would imply that God has needs. God has no needs. He is all-sufficient within himself. He is not needy in any sense whatsoever. Question: If God has no needs, then why did he create us? Answer: To save us. Saving us is the ultimate manifestation of God: love. God is love. All right, so God may be omniscient, omnipotent, and all the other omnis -- although I maintain that we can say these big words, but we can't really understand what they mean when we use them to describe God, who is essentially indescribable (by us) in any event. But God is love. His love was manifested before the foundation of the earth was laid in the person of his eternally-begotten God-the-Son or God-the-Word. For without him, Christ, was not anything made that was made, including us. When you first think about it, it sounds odd that God would create someone whom he knew in advance would "fall." That's because his thoughts are higher than our thoughts as the heavens are higher than the earth. Furthermore, how can we say that God knows the future -- enough to have all of those prophets prophesying down there on the earth his footstool -- and then then say he created us NOT KNOWING in advance that we would fall? He knew. But he created us anyway. In order to have someone to love him? Obviously not, if God has no needs. They why? Only possible answer: to love us, since God is love. Question: Then how did he show (reveal) the love that he "is"? Answer: "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that whosoever believed in him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16. But all of this had to be planned in advance, before the foundation of the earth was laid. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable: God created us in order to save us. And in this way he revealed himself for what he really is: He is not a God who needs to be loved by us. He is a God who chooses to show (reveal to) us who he really is -- love -- by saving us. Grace to you, Jude | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Jude, That was at least 2 1/99 cents worth. At this point, I'm really having a problem with: "Question: If God has no needs, then why did he create us? Answer: To save us." I'm so over loaded with information that my brain is going Bzzzzzzzz! Why did he create us to save us? If He knew the end from the beginning, then did He create sin? If He created us to save us, He must have created us to sin! I know, I know, I'm way off in extreme left field. But then, YOU KNOW I ask the questions that some wont! And let me remind you again, I'm really serious in my above comments and questions. I worry that you may think I am being frivolous. (I did that once in the humor thread, remember?) I do have my hard hat handy if I need it ;-) Overloaded......Maryann | ||
| Lori and David |
Maryann, Going back to your original post--At the time of the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden, Adam sinned a deliberate sin (he knew what he was doing). Eve sinned a sin of ignorance, she was deceived (she didn't listen in Bible class, she was probably talking) therefore the sin nature is passed down through the male to the offspring. The female has a sin nature but it is not passed to the offspring through her (it comes from the male). All humanity is condemned becomes Adam was condemned before he was saved. God the Holy Spirit formed 26 chromosones to combine with Marys 26 chromosones which were uncontaminated by the sin nature. Therefore Christ was born without a sin nature. He is spoken of in the Bible as the 'second Adam' because he was born without a sin nature and Adam was created without a sin nature. Deity can not have a sin nature and Jesus' humanity was born without a sin nature. Answer question #2: Why did God create us? The creation of humanity was for an appeal trial for Satan and the fallen angels, who have already been sentenced to the lake of fire (that was the end of the first trial). Satan appealed to God's perfect love and he said "how can a loving God sentence his created beings to a lake of fire?". So God created a lesser being, physically and mentally, with only one similiarity, that being the ability to choose. David (and Lori) | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi Maryann, In order to know anything at all about God we must look to Scripture. The Pharisees did this: Jesus said to them, "You search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life. But they are they that testify of me. Yet you refuse to come to me that you might have life." Powerful stuff. Jesus Christ is the Word which, John says, was from the beginning. The Word an expression of God. God "spoke" and the universe came into existence. God "spoke" and Maryann came into being. Jesus is the Word that God "spoke." But Jesus is more than just the Word. Jesus Christ is God. Not only is Jesus Christ God, but he is all three Persons of the Godhead. If that were not so, then when you sing Handel's Messiah at Christmas and Easter, you would be singing heresy. For the Messiah quotes from Isaiah where that wonderful prophet "sang" with his pen that the coming baby Messiah's "name would be called, Wonderful Counselor (the Holy Spirit), the Mighty God (the Trinity, the 1X1X1=1), the Everlasting Father (God the Father), the Prince of Peace (God the Son). You want to know about God? Search the Scriptures. What do you find there? Jesus Christ. In him is a complete record of everything we need to know about God. And 99.99% of everything that we know about God is contained in the New Testament. Only 0.01% is found in the Old. How dare I make so bold? Read Hebrews 1:1 NRSV: "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." Wow! Do you catch the import of that message? In the Greek "many and various ways" is "polumeros kai polutpopos" which can also be correctly translated as "bits and pieces." In fact you could almost -- BUT NOT QUITE -- say once you have the New Testament you don't need the Old any more. I say this only to emphasize the importance of Jesus Christ as the sum total of the entire revelation of both Testaments. More next post, Jude | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Jude, I got off work early :-) Got things to do, so will run, but, you sure do know how to personalize things. It has a way of grabbing ones attention. Whoa! Looking forward to reading more this evening. Maryann | ||
| Bill Twisse |
On suffering and temptation: The idea is this: Jesus suffered being tempted. What is resisting unto blood? It is determination not to give in: no matter how great the torture. The person who will die for his faith suffers the most because 'no recantation' means more and more torment. Am I off here? The same principle applies to temper, temperance in all pleasures, witnessing, etc. The temptation to compromise in these areas will never go away, it will only get worse. Temptation is external, not necessarily internal. Desire for sin is internal only. So is the strength to resist it by God's spirit. It still seems to me that the person who resists sin more experiences greater suffering than the one who resists it little. On Christ's Purpose on Coming to Earth: Excellent post, Colleen! We have to get away from this 'example' notion entirely & focus on Christ's atonement & exaltation as Lord of all things. He is the eternal God who veiled himself in humanity for our redemption. On the Origen of Evil: Great questions, Maryann. I'm glad that you have the courage to ask them. I have definite opinions but since I'm new to this board I had better delay on this one! I want to be able to stay around a while longer. Ask me in 6 months if God willed the original sin and how we might understand the origin of evil (was Milton right or wrong?) On the Inheritance of Sin Through the Genes: I can't argue with such brilliant logic of how it works if I tried! That is, assuming that sin is genetic--which it isn't. Sin is a spiritual principle, the same as righteousness. Christ's humanity was exempt from it by the sovereign will and determination of God. Our battle is against spiritual wickedness in our hearts, not the material flesh and blood we inherited. --Twisse | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Bill, Thank you for the affirmation, comments and answers you give (everyone). You said: "I have definite opinions but since I'm new to this board I had better delay on this one! I want to be able to stay around a while longer. Ask me in 6 months if God willed the original sin and how we might understand the origin of evil (was Milton right or wrong?)" You have a "mis-guided" thought and a "guided" thought! Mis-guided thought is: Any opinion that you might present could get you in trouble! If a I'm still here, anyone can still be here!! Guided thought is: You plan to stay around for a while! 6 months for starters anyway. ;-) BTW, I'm going to pick on you till I see you smile on at least ONE post! A simple smiley face will do! Maryann |
