| Author | Message | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 412 Registered: 1-2003  |
Chris, are you saying that SDAs believe that Christ came to earth with a fallen nature and needed to be saved? I don't claim to be conversant with many things in the SDA world in the past 15 years, but I don't remember being taught that many years ago when I was more "plugged in" and if true I'm in shock.  In Christ, richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Mrsbrian3 Registered user Username: Mrsbrian3 Post Number: 37 Registered: 8-2005 |
If Christ needed to be saved, then His death would have been to save Himself and could not have been in my place, right? As for Enoch, I think he obtained faith, not perfection ... Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Kim | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3455 Registered: 12-2003  |
Chris, I understand. What you just "saw" is what has made me so convinced that Adventism is not just heterodox but truly heretical. Richard, Adventism teaches that Jesus never sinned. It does not teach that He needed to be "saved". The problem, however, is that their overt statements about His sinlessness are in contradiction to many of Ellen's statements that Jesus had sinful flesh because He was Mary's son. In reality, the Adventist church has no doctrine on Christ's nature. My SDA relatives still say that Jesus did not have a "SINFUL" nature but He had a FALLEN nature. Talk about obfuscation! What Is The Difference??!! This heresy directly alters the identity of Christ. This heresy also springs from the Adventists' refusal to accept the reality of the human spirit being something other than breath. If Jesus had "sinful flesh" and that flesh is where "sin" resides and originates, then Jesus was not sinless. If Jesus had a spirit which was alive from conception because he was conceived of God (unlike us who must be brought to life in our dead spirits by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), then HE WAS SINLESS. He did NOT have a "fallen nature" or inherited sin from Mary. He Was Sinless. If He were not sinless, He could NOT have been our Savior. Because Adventists mouth evangelical words in their public statementsóJesus is God, Jesus never sinned, etc.óthey convince the Christian world that they are just like any other Christian church with a few external exceptions. This apprearance, howeer, is a lie. Adventism does NOT teach that Jesus is the Jesus described in the Bible. They have developed vocabulary to cover up the Jesus they actually believe in: a Jesus described by Ellen White as variously an angel, the non-eternal son of God, the sometimes eternal son of God, a person who inherited sinful flesh yet never sinned (a complete oxymoron) who is our example because we, too, can gain the victory over sin if Jesus overcame temptation while having sinful or fallen flesh... You get the point. Adventism does not teach that Jesus is eternal God free from all taint of fallennes or sin. Jesus has and had a sinless nature, and He had to overcome nothing except temptationóyet he bore the sin of the whole world. And how did he overcome temptation? Not by willpower or determination. He overcame it by the Word of God (remember His responses to Satan in the wilderness? "It is written...") and by offering Himself as a living sacrifice to His father in obedience to Him. Chris, your profound A-HA is an understanding that makes everything look different. Praise God! Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1107 Registered: 7-2003  |
Richard, I am not suggesting that Christ having a fallen nature is necessarily "official doctrine", but I am saying that it is widely accepted doctrine within Adventism. Let me give you three reasons why I think so: First, I would cite my own training as a SDA. I was born and raised SDA and attended SDA schools for 18 years. I was taught in school that Jesus had a sin nature just like you and me. I was taught that since Jesus overcame his fallen nature and lived a perfect life so could we. In fact, I was taught that we MUST attain perfection prior to the end of probation when we would have to live without a mediator. Only through God's people attaining perfection could God's Law (and God Himself) be vindicated before the universe. I was taught that the Great Controversy was over Satan's charge that God's Law was too hard and therefore unfair. God would win the controversy by proving that his Law can be perfectly kept therefore He is perfectly fair. Secondly, I would present RevivalSermons.org as exhibit two. If you peruse the threads over there you will see that the majority of the posters (SDA) are strongly arguing for a Jesus with a sinful nature just like ours. There are a few dissenters, but they seem to be out numbered. This SDA discussion board closely reflects my experience in Adventism. Thirdly, I would mention that the SDA 28 fundamental beliefs listed on the official SDA website state that the writings of EGW ìare a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.î So taking them at their word, here is what this authoritative source of truth had to say on the nature of Christ:
To be sure, she sometimes contradicted herself on this, but one can readily see why so many (perhaps most) historic SDAs believe that Christ had a fallen nature. Chris | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 414 Registered: 1-2003 |
Thanks Chris and also Colleen for taking the time to answer my questions. When I was growing up I remember being taught some of this but always considered Christ to be God and "fallen nature" to mean the sin weakened physical body and not His Spiritual Nature which was God. I must be honest and say I'm still a little confused as to what all the words are really referring to. We seem to have many definitions of the same word. In Christ, Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 607 Registered: 4-2000  |
Rob, I notice that you are an "xsra" like myself. I am assuming that you are also a graduate of the former (actually relocated & consolidated with the former Plainview Academy in SD) Sheyenne River Academy in North Dakota. If my assumption is correct, we have some commonalities in our educational background. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 383 Registered: 7-2004  |
I too used to think that when EGW and other SDA's said Jesus took on our fallen nature, it meant only the weakened body and not the spiritual nature. However, in the quote Chris posted, "Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it (humanity) might become..." that sounds like the spiritual nature. Because obviously it can readily be seen that we can't overcome our weakened, physical bodies and EGW makes it clear many places we are to overcome our character faults (through God's help of course). | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1116 Registered: 10-2004  |
Rob, no I was not saying what you thought I was saying, and I have a totally different theology and a totally different Jesus than you do. Everyone, I hadn't really realized before that EGW really does teach that Jesus had to "save Himself" just as we have to "save ourselves": He had to overcome His sinful nature! What blasphemy! I am more convinced than ever, that Adventism not only has a false gospel and a false prophet, but a false god, also. (And a false Jesus and a false Spirit--2 Corinthians 11:4.) Telling some Adventists to trust "Jesus" alone for their salvation is like telling a Muslim to trust in Allah. They have a different God, a different Jesus. First, you must explain who Jesus is. Colleen, you wrote: "Jesus has and had a sinless nature, and He had to overcome nothing except temptationóyet he bore the sin of the whole world." I think that even saying that Jesus had to "overcome temptation" almost makes it sound like the temptations were a threat to Him, or that He had sinful desires. "Overcoming temptation" is not something Jesus "had" to do. The temptations that Jesus faced were to prove that He was God and could not sin. They were to say to the whole world: look, Jesus is God and is totally undefiled and does not sin! There was no possibility of Jesus giving in to the temptations. God cannot sin. Colleen, I'm confused about some of what you said regarding sinful flesh. It sounded like you were saying that the idea that we have inherently sinful flesh is false--but doesn't the Bible make it clear that our flesh is sinful and wars against the things of God? Otherwise, wouldn't we be sinless like Jesus now that our spirits have been made alive? Chris, I noticed in your first EGW quote that she says that Christ bore the sins of the world during His entire ministry on earth (from His baptism at least, according to the context of that quote), way before the Cross! Also, notice that she says that God declared Jesus to be "the Son of the Eternal," implying that Jesus is not eternal. Regarding the nature of Christ: EGW does use the term "sinful nature" as well as "fallen nature" to refer to Christ's nature. What she taught was that Christ had a sinless "divine" nature which "combined" with His sinful "human" nature! A fellowship of light and darkness if you will. Kind of like Gnosticism. EGW also made it clear that Jesus had "moral degeneracy" and "detoriated moral worth" and sinful desires! Here are some quotes:
Notice that in that last quote EGW is saying that Jesus had a gluttonous appetite but He did not indulge it. He overcame His sinful desires. The teaching of EGW is that Jesus had a sinful nature--therefore, He was sinful and had sinful desires. But isn't having the desire to commit sin, sinning? According to Ellen, Jesus wanted to commit adultery, murder, theft, etc.--but didn't. But isn't He then responsible for commiting those sins in His heart--didn't He then sin the sins of lust, covetousness, etc.?! Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on February 27, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3459 Registered: 12-2003 |
Richard, I'm not surprised you're confused by the words. The reason Ellen's clear statements about Jesus are so confusing is that Adventists have no idea what the "spiritual nature" really is. I always understood that my sin inherited from Adam, whatever that meant, came through my genes. How else could it come? I had no "spirit" separate from my body, according to Ellen and the church, because I consisted of BODY plus BREATH. So of course "sin" was our weakened physical condition which set us up for "sinning". Consequently, in Adventism, there was really no difference between our "weakened physical nature" and our "weakened spiritual nature". Our spiritual nature was an outgrowth of our physical selves, according to their doctrines. In fact, this confusion lies behind the rationale for the "health message". We must eat right and avoid unclean meats and coffee and tea and alcohol, etc., so our minds (physical, thinking minds) will be clear to perceive the Holy Spirit. If we "abuse" our bodies with unclean substances, we will be less perceptive to the Holy Spirit. This idea is just bunk! Our minds are renewed when we are in Christ, to be sure, but we perceive the Holy Spirit through our awakened spirits. Before Jesus enters our lives, our spirits are literally DEAD in sin (Eph. 2:1-4). That's our inherited sin; our "spiritual natures" are about our "spirits", not our bodies. When Adventists say Jesus had a "fallen sinful nature", they really mean he became, in human form, just like us. I was even taught he laid his divinity aside so he could keep that law all in his human strength with a fallen sinful natureóthus He could be my example. Adventists really do not distinguish between the physical nature and the spiritual nature. They insist the two are not separate. Therefore, all their talk of Jesus taking on our fallen sinful nature really does leave us with a sinful Jesus. They insist His sinlessness was defined by "not sinning". Yet Romans 5 is clear that our sin predates our "sins". We are born doomed to death. Adventists' teaching about the nature of Christ leaves us with a sinful Jesus. Despite their convoluted arguments to the contrary, that's the Jesus they offer. This fact is one of the reasons 'accepting Jesus' was such a confusing and unhelpful concept as an Adventist. He wasn't, in Adventism, my Substitute who, because He was intrinsically DIFFERENT from me, had NO sin and yet carried my sin. He was just "lucky", a person with innate sinful tendencies like I have, but He was the "goody-two-shoes" (I do not mean that disrespectfully, but Jesus' sinlessness was like an axe over my head) who kept that lawówhich meant I could, tooóif I were just devoted and committed enough. How crazy-making! Praise God for revealing the TRUE JESUSóthe spotless Lamb of God conceived by the Holy Spiritóspiritually alive and yet fully human. He completely identifies with me, yet He is Godóand as God, He was my Savior because only He could BE sinless (because He was God). Praise JesusóHe is my Substitute because there was not one spot or blemish in Him. He alone could be my Savior! Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3460 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, I just saw your post. No, I am NOT SAYING that we have in any way sinless flesh. The miracle of the new birth is that the God of the universe inhabits our sinful flesh. I'm also saying we have inherently dead spiritual natures. It's both. In fact, our salvation works in the same order the fall happened. God saves us in our sin and brings our spirits to life (Adam and Eve's spirits died that day they ate the fruit). Later, at Jesus' return, our bodies are brought to eternal life. (Adam and Eve died physically years after they died spiritually.) As far as Jesus' "flesh" goes, He did have Mary's genes. The Bible does not explain to us how his physical flesh "worked" with His divine nature. But what I am saying is that Jesus had none of those inherent tendencies to sin that we are all born with. The Bible doesn't explain HOW that worked. You're rightósaying "Jesus had to overcome tempatation" perhaps gave the wrong "message". He did not have inherent "tendencies" to sin. I agree that His wilderness experience was for the purpose of proving that He was God. Any mere human would have been unable to withstand Satan. But even though there is mystery here which the Bible does not explain regarding how Jesus' hunan flesh worked in the incarnation, still His death and resurrection did demonstrate that the flesh we have on this earth is not the flesh we will have in the resurrection. Just as Jesus rose with a glorified resurrection body, we will, too. It will be somehow related to the flesh we have now (Paul's metaphor of the seed dying and producing a plant which is nothing like the seed yet related to it--1 Cor 15), but different and immensely better. I'm really only saying that the true definition of sin is NOT primarily physical. It is primarily spiritual. That spiritual deathóthat separating of the part of us that knows God from being one with Himóis the essence of our sin. That is what we are born with. Our bodies follow suit immediately; our dead spirits have nothing to live for except one's self. Jesus did NOT have a dead spirit at any point in his incarnation. And, in a miracle which has not been explained to us, his physical flesh inherited from Mary was not sinful nor inclinced to sin. He was not like us: we are completely sinful, both spiritually and physically, from the moment of our conceptions. Only a miracle of God can change our condition and bring our spirits to lifeóand eventually change our bodies as well! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1117 Registered: 10-2004 |
"Jesus did NOT have a dead spirit at any point in his incarnation." Wow--that statement really got me thinking, Colleen. I've always heard and believed that Jesus died spiritually on the Cross, and that He was separated from the Father. It seems that a lot of Christians teach that. And yet if that is true, then how could He be God, and He would have had to have had a dead spirit and therefore be sinful. I've been reading some things I've found on Google. It seems that the Bible never says that Jesus was separated from the Father on the Cross. Christians have just made that up! Here is one Google search that I've found helpful. Wow. This is really making me think. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3463 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, Jeremy, I don't really think we can absolutely conclude the details of what happened to Jesus on the cross. We know that Jesus apparently experienced his Father's removalóthe three hours of darkness also suggest that the Father withdrew. I don't believe, though, that the Father's withdrawal resulted in "spiritual death" for Jesus. Sinners do NOT want to be in the presence of God. They will cry for the rocks to fall on them to protect them from His glory. Jesus, however, desperately longed for His Father's presence. He had no personal sin in Him that yielded guilt or shame or fear. I believe that He really did experience His Father's withdrawal. Part of the unimaginable agony He experienced was carrying the world's sin which necessitated His experiencing separationóbut without the personal guilt which would have been part of His own spirit's death. I know that one of the creeds (Westminster, I think?) states that Jesus descended to hell. While it seems plausible that He did visit hell to declare victory (as Peter suggests), the Bible does not say that Jesus actually suffered in hell. I remember one day several years ago when Gary said in a sermon, "Jesus did not go to hell!" I certainly cannot explain all this, but I think that Jesus experienced separation yet without his spirit being snuffed into death. He experienced OUR death; He felt the Father's impenetrable withdrawal. But if His spirit had actually been "dead", He would have had sinóand He would not have cried FOR His Father. Had He truly been spiritually dead, He would have welcomed the Father's withdrawal. I don't think we can tease this apart and completely understand it. We just need to KNOW that Jesus is/was completely sinless, and the death He died was ours. The agony He experienced was ours. He was OUR substitute, and He literally suffered OUR deserved punishment, not in any way His own. He was the completely innocent, unblemished Lamb of Godóand He took away the sins of the world. Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 12 Registered: 6-2005 |
Chris, Sorry if I alarmed you. Jesus Himself didn't need to be saved from sin, because He never at any time had sin in Him. But He had to go over the same ground as we do, by trusting in God's word, not His own sinless nature. In this sense He trusted in the everlasting covenant and needed to be saved from trusting in Himself ñ His albeit righteous self. As for His nature, I believe He had a sinful body but a sinless mind. He didn't possess the carnal mind -- the disposition or bent or inclination or tendency to sin -- but did possess human weakness or frailty, i.e. he felt hunger, pain, weariness, and all human frailties. You may now logically ask, how then could He be tempted in all points as we are if He never possessed a carnal mind? In the same way Adam and Eve were tempted in the beginning -- when they possessed righteous minds. Also, how did Lucifer fall? Was he not "full of wisdom, perfect in beauty" at one time? This shows that a righteous mind can be tempted. All that is needed is for the person to be tempted to look away from God to self ñ even a righteous self. The fact that Satan tempted Jesus shows He could be tempted; why else would Satan have bothered? But we should accept God at His word, so that if He says Christ was tempted in all points as we are, then He was, even if we canít see it. The bible calls Christís twin nature the mystery of God. If we could understand or explain it, it wouldnít be a mystery. Dennis, Xsra means ex-Sabbath Rest Adventist. Were you once associated with said church? If so, please elaborate if you wish. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1108 Registered: 7-2003 |
Rob, yes I was quite startled, to say the least, when you asked how Jesus was saved. I think I may understanding your thought somewhat better now, but still think we have very different view points. I would like to take a look at the text you alluded to above. Hebrews 4:15 (NASB) 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. The traditional SDA understanding (in my experience) of this text is as follows: ìFor we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our fallen nature, but One who struggled with thoughts and desires as we do, and yet he didnít give in to those thoughts and desires and actually commit the sins in deed. He overcame his fallen nature and we can do the sameî. But the text cannot mean this for several reasons. The first is that sin is more than an external act. Sin also occurs in our thought life. We have impure thoughts and desires because we are fallen creatures. This was not the case with Christ. This leads us to the second reason we cannot understand this text in this way. Jesus is God almighty. A holy God cannot countenance sin in thought or deed. Jesus, who is God, cannot countenance sin in thought or deed. To go one step further, God cannot sin, period. We sometimes say ìGod can do anythingî, but that is not strictly true. God can do anything that is consistent with His nature. God cannot sin, so even in the incarnation Jesus could not sin and still be fully God. Jesusí perfect sinless life was never in doubt anymore than his victory over evil was ever in doubt. He is the omnipotent Holy God. So how do we understand this text then? I would submit to you the following paraphrase: ìFor we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our human experience, but One who has had the Devil and the world throw every possible test at him, even though he is completely without sin in thought or deed.î You see, the ìtemptationî that Jesus experienced isnít the inner turmoil and strife that you and I experience. We experience that inner turmoil as our sinful humanness struggles with our regenerate spirit. We will continue to experience this struggle, and to frequently stumble and fall, until we are glorified with Christ. Jesus had no sin in him, inherited or otherwise. He did not wrestle with sinful thoughts and desires, He is God Almighty! When we speak of Jesus being tempted we are speaking of the fact that Satan did everything he could to tempt and test Jesus. Jesus encountered all the same types of tests and sinful environments found in the world that we do. Jesus can fully sympathize with everything that is thrown at us everyday. Jesus knows that we, as fallen created beings are not up to the test. So he stands as our high priest and mediator and covers us with his own righteousness, a righteousness that is forensically imputed to us, a righteousness that can only come from God himself. By the way, - Why do you think Enoch ìattained perfectionî? (Biblical reference please). - Why do you think Moses would have been ìtranslatedî without seeing death? (Biblical reference please). Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3465 Registered: 12-2003 |
Well stated, Chris. XSRA, I'd also like to see your answers to Chris's two questions. I'm more and more convinced that we cannot really know Jesus as the SPOTLESS (read that free from the internal struggles and unbidden sinful thoughts fallen humans experience) Lamb of God and simultaeously believe Ellen was a true prophet. The two are mutually exclusive. Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 13 Registered: 6-2005 |
Chris, I agree with what you say regarding Christís nature. Amen. Regarding your first question, hereís my answer. ìAnd Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.î Gen 5:22-24 I understand the term ìwalked with Godî as meaning being one with God and thus perfect. If youíre looking for the words ìAnd Enoch was a perfect manî from the Bible before you will believe, you will never believe. Regarding your second question, -- Moses being translated had he not sinned at the rock, -- Iíll get back to you when I have more time. Colleen, I appreciate you permitting me to share on this board ideas you and others may find disagreeable. | ||
| Lori Registered user Username: Lori Post Number: 28 Registered: 11-1999 |
Here's a concept to think about regarding the "perfect nature" of Christ: Could it be the sinful nature is passed down from the male "seed"? The fact that Christs seed was planted in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit eliminates the process by which the sinful nature is passed thus the one born in this manner is totally unique--no sin nature!! Christ Jesus--The very essence of God encapsulated forever in the "likeness of man". Just a thought..... | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 417 Registered: 1-2003 |
Lori, so the "seed" is sinful but the "egg" is pure?  Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3473 Registered: 12-2003 |
I really don't think we can explain HOW Jesus' inheritance from Mary was not sinful. As Elizabeth Inrig often says, we can't go beyond what the Bible says. The Bible only says He was without sin. That is a whole, complete statement; He was without sin in any form. We have to accept that statement without forcing its truth into human logic pigeonholes. The minute we try to explain how His humanity and His divinty "worked" together, we run into trouble. We cannot see the big picture because it involves things hidden from us here in this three-dimensional, sinful world. We cannot use Ellen's comments for insight because they go beyond what the Bible says. Ellen's words explain how Jesus had sinful weaknesses. The Bible is clear that He did not have such weaknesses. He was the spotless Lamb of Godówithout blemish, pure, sinless, holy, righteous. He was not a merely well-disciplined human with sinful tendencies. He was GOD in human flesh. Colleen | ||
| Lori Registered user Username: Lori Post Number: 29 Registered: 11-1999 |
I'm saying it's just a possibility...something to consider....I'm not saying it's the way it is. |
