Hats off to very incisive thinking. Dave joins philosophy with theology, with the latter determining reality. Basically, the only firm ground for understanding the "Being" and "Act" of the historical Jesus is found in Paul's clear statements in his various letters. And theological studies have made it clear that these texts are interpreted on the basis of (1)one's presuppositions regarding (often unconsciously the nature of sin and (2) on whose theological system the student is indebted to. Dave's closing sentence is laser-sharp!

Dave,

Just two thoughts.......
Which of us was conceived from a virgin by the Holy Spirit?

When was Christ ever described as "being dead in tresspasses and sins." Eph.2:1.

Dave, I looked for "one text" of scripture in your comments. Was it an oversight?

pat

Dave

How do you read Romans 5? Tom

Herb,

It was the "emphasis" on Christ's human nature being "just like ours" and Christ as example that had many of us thirsting in the desert for "good news" after reading the weekly Review in the 70's.

Some of us praised God and received spiritual peace after learning of Jesus as an Atoning Savior from the preaching of the likes of Des Ford.

Why Jesus waits? So that more may hear that He died for forgiveness of sins that we might have life. For if Righteousness could come by following His example, He died in vain. So, growth in holiness,yes..."Righteousnes" by example and being "just like him"... no.

pat

Pat--I'm not attempting to speak for Dave, but my thought about scripture is that clearly Christians have been reading the whole of the Bible for centuries and still manage to come up with different proof-texts that support contradictory notions on this issue (and many, many other issues). I really appreciated Dave bringing in other disciplines that have thoughtful commentary on this questions. Just dropping in a verse or two is meaningless to me as you can find a verse or two to support almost anything; the trajectory and synthesis of scripture is where meaning starts to be made.

Dave--is this issue so controversial (I know it's been in Adventism) because of the atonement model that Jesus had to be a perfect sacrifice for our sins? How do proponents of other atonement models discuss this?

History does seem to repeat itself. A few months ago, we saw and hear a rerun of Answers to Questions on Doctrine. Now we see the Nature of Christ revisited. Shades of M.L. Andreasen!

It seems to center on two paragraphs in the book The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan—pages 622-623 the key sentence reads: “ This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.” The sentence refers to the mind set of Jesus as described in the sentences above: “Not even by a thought could our Savior be brought to yield to the power of temptation.”

The M. L. Andreasen’s position was that the final generation would be sinless.

The Scholars who wrote Answers to Questions on Doctrine explained to Barnhouse and Martin that a final perfect generation was not the official position of the Church.

This led Andreasen to write a series of broadsides: Letters to the Churches in protest against a key E.G.W. position. Andreasen paid dearly for his independence.

Then came Brinsmead 1. Taking M. L. Andreasen’s position.
Then Brinsmead 1 and 7/8. Who explained that the “sealing of the saints” included a removal of original sin and thus, like Christ—perfect but still in human flesh (no holy flesh aspect of early Adventism).
Brinsmead 2 or later became a solid reformational advocate:
By Scripture Alone, By Christ Alone, By Faith Alone.

His present position seems to be totally ego-centric.

But back to the issue at hand.

Late in the debate, the Review reverted to the M. L. Andreasen position. K. Woods wrote that the Book Answers to Questions on Doctrine should never have been published. Dr. Herbie Douglass wrote a book entitled: Why Jesus Waits which is a ringing endorsement of the M.L. Andreason’s Position. Yet, not one citation listed from the extensive writing on the subject by M. L. Andreasen.

In respond, or at least in a similar time frame, Edward Heppenstall wrote a counter book entitled the Man Who Was God. Heppenstall
took the position that Christ took the flesh of contemporary man without Original Sin. Heppenstall took the position that at no time in the life of man or men will man vindicate God. Jesus Christ alone accomplished that at the Cross—for all mankind. Salvation rests now and forever more on the acceptance of the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

The only reason the issue remains fresh and “sore” is that those who believe in a final perfect generation have first to make Jesus Christ less than perfect.

The Roman Catholic Church accomplishes the subject of the sinless nature of Christ by confirming on Mary Immaculate Conception. The Seventh-day Adventists accomplish a final perfect generation by the end-point of the Investigative Judgment.

Both are built out of (w) hole cloth.

Tom

Hi Daneen,

So, we don't use scripture because people disagree? Will they not also disagree with non bilical cited sources? Is there not an obligation to teach each new generation sola scriptura and what that means?

Tom,

Of course we agree on this issue.

Two main issues always get us back here. The "human nature" of Christ and a "hyper view" of the "sanctuary message" and what it accomplishes before Christ comes again.(Perhaps hyper is the wrong word but rather an "expected outcome" of "our/some" wrong understanding of Christ's atonement and what it accomplished at the cross and the fact that some "special atoning ministry" and judgment began in 1844 when Christ went into the Most Holy rather than the fact He sat down at the Rt.Hand of the father on the throne at His ascension as Priest & King.)

The final analysis is weather Christ's King-Priest ministry "makes righteous"(just like Jesus) or graciously "reckons righteous" sinners who are "being made holy."Heb.10:14.

If he "makes righteous" we are "at home" with RCC theology...non pejorative historical comment only.

pat

Your request to have Dave provide proof texts for his writing about Jesus does feel like it has an edge to it, Pat. But, for me, the story of Jesus and his mother at the wedding in Cana recorded in John 2 makes the same point as Dave. In that story Mary comes to Jesus and asks him to do something that he is not ready to do. First, he questions her, but because of his love for her, he does it, he changes his behavior, and performs his first miracle. He is human like us--affected by his relationship with his mother; divine in is his ability to perform miracles. Dave captures it beautifully at the end. Jesus is as Jesus does.

Bonnie,

I asked for no "proof" text of Dave, my dear protectors...including Daneen.

Is it asking or expecting too much from a "theologian" for any support "at all" from scripture in an article to support his view? I was merely pointing out what is clearly apparent.

I wonder if Des and Raymond C. articles will be done likewise?

pat

Hello, I'm new here....
Just a few points:
* Looking within the Bible, Jesus--as Lamb of God--had to be "sinless", i.e. whatever He died for, He did not possess. The sacrificial animals of the OT system had to be without blemish. And they pointed to Jesus, who was, therefore, without blemish. The question then becomes, what is "sin" (blemish)?

* I, personally, cannot find any profound information about Jesus' human-divine nature in the psychology of relationships. It feels like trying to explain the aerodynamics of an airplane by studying the seating arrangement of the passengers. Maybe I missed something though... after all, I'm only human ;-)

* And the final generation??
That's Jesus' responsibility, not ours. If they need to be of a certain "quality", then, surely, He is able enough to take care of that Himself, without swarms of authors, bloggers, PhDs and others (like myself) having to remind Him.

Thanks to Pat and Tom, the issue of what happened in the publication of QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE rears its interesting head. In my latest book, A FORK IN THE ROAD, (a book that David has robustly endorsed for its historical accuracy), we were led to uncover the remarkable theological inexperience of the Adventist players as they played in the big leagues with several key Calvinists. The amazing theological detour that occurred in the Seminary thereafter has also been chronicled in Bull and Lockhart's SEEKING A SANCTURY.

Herb Douglass

Hi Dave,

Its interesting that on the week that the SS lesson is about the Divinity of Christ, you just had to bring up another old Adventist hornet's nest...Jesus' human nature. I'll take the bait anyway!!

A few thoughts:

1) If sin is viewed purely relationally, and if it means separation from God, then how could Jesus have been in exactly the same positon as us from birth? While, as Wesley put it, all live under pre-venient grace or, IOW common grace, every person born after Adam is still desperately in need of saving and reconciling grace. Every person is "dead in trespasses and sins," as Pat quoted...because they are cut off from relationship with the life-giver. Are you saying that Jesus was by nature and birth in the same position/predicament as us? If so, how then does he get reconciled?--- Because he would need to be.

Also, how does one make sense of EGW's statements that Jesus was one who never knew separation from the Father? Even more importantly, how does this impact our understanding of the awesomeness of Calvary, when Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Not only is Jesus dying as the substitute for a lost race, he is for the first time personally experiencing spiritual and relational separation from God. But if he was by nature just like us...how is this possible?

2) If sin is viewed as a realm, force and enslaving power as the Bible and particularly Romans surely reveals, and if we are born as subjects of this enslaving power, are you saying that Jesus was born in the same bondage as us? Wouldn't he need to then be rescued out of it just as we do?

3) Why would Jesus' nature like Adam pre-fall, cancel any contribution to his identity from ordinary people like you and me? His mother raised him as an observant Jew; he was culturally a Jew of his time; he interacted genuinely with his world; but does that mean that the value systems of fallen humanity couldn't still be foreign to him?

This is where EGW speaks about him innately having 'no propensity to sin.' That's quite different than saying he wasn't capable of sin, or that temptation was not real to him. It was real to Adam and Eve pre-fall... and real and powerful enough to them that they did fall. Being '...tempted in all points as we are...' does not seem to necessitate the same starting point of the tempted.

With that said, I guess I'm just not getting why a pre-fall nature and authentic shaping relationships with sinners have to be mutually exclusive.

4) It would be interesting to see the arch of EGW's writings on the human nature of Jesus. How much of her emphasis on his likeness to us in our 'sinful nature' was written before the 1880's, when Adventism was focused more on Law and perfection, and how much of her emphasis on his difference from us came in the 1880's and beyond, when justification became the more central focus of her mature thought and experience?

5) Lastly, I just can't help but think that the NT itself is not very clear on this topic. It is left in as much mystery, as Jesus' being 100% divine and human. Maybe this is why the church has never been very definitive about this issue...because in the end, how much does it really matter?

When approaching this, I feel like I can take a lesson from the blind man that Jesus healed, "Whether He is a sinner or not, I do not know. But one thing I do know, once I was blind, but now I can see!" Praise him!

Forgive me for quoting a little out of context.

Thanks...

Frank

I thought this was about Jesus, not QOD....

More ink, cyber- or real, will be spilled. More interesting arguments on either side.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (in the real world), people who should hear the Good News of Jesus might instead only catch some bad news about forks in doctrines and questions on roads...

What makes Jesus so immensely attractive is NOT that He is exactly like me (who would want THAT, be like this screwed-up guy), but that He is enough like me to be able to know and empathise, and different enough to be able to get me out of this mess.

If what EGW says about the cross being the science of the saints throughout eternity is true, then, I am afraid, we won't solve Christ's Deity, sacrifice, nature, etc. here in a few lines.

All I need to know is:

His sacrifice is sufficient to save me.
He is my Brother.

and I love Him.

Herb,

As Woodrow Whidden Ph.D of Andrews says in his August,2003 article in Ministry: "The most controversial outcome of the QOD debates flows from the issues surrounding "The Humanity of Christ."

Yes, It does relate to "our Sanctuary message" and how we present the Good news of the Kingdom of God and the "forgiveness of sins" and Andreason's and your view of "why Jesus waits."

...Yet we are told we shouldn't go back there by Paulson and as I remember Dave reporting from the conference saying, we "should get a life."

It seems you should be offended Herb if it is such an important topic as to be a "fork in the road."

pat

Dave,

Thanks for your explanation. I am not yet sure if I can go all the way with what you have said, but I'm at least open to the possibility.

I have fully thought for as long as I can remember that Christ took a sinful nature. Problem is, I don't really know what that means! I think you are helping me understand it a little better.

Greetings Everybody!

Thank you for your comments. They are so numerous and diverse that I'm not certain how to proceed. Perhaps, I can offer a few general observations:

1. I think it helpful to deal with one issue at a time. So I'm going to try to stick to the theme of this week's lesson: "The Word became flesh and lived ["sanctuaried!"] among us."

2. We have two key words: "Word" and "Flesh." Of the two, over the centuries all Christians have had much more difficulty with the second than the first. One version of Docetism or another is the ever present temptation.

3. But why is this so? I think that part of the reason is that Western culture, influenced as it is both by people like Plato in the ancient world and Descartes in the modern, is deeply and intensely uncomfortable with the material side of things: "flesh."

4. The results of this deep suspicion of "flesh" have been very harmful in many areas of life. One of the most significant of these is human sexuality. Instead of accepting our sexual powers as divine gifts that can be misused as can all the others, our culture shifts on sexual issues, like someone who suffers from an untreated a bi-polar mood disorder, between manic irresponsibility and depressive guilt. This is symptomatic of a very serious cultural pathology.

5. Much is at stake here and we are in danger of playing out the issues on too small a stage. I think that this is why Scripture says that "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God."

6. In addition body/soul or mind/matter dualism, we have also inherited substance-thinking. Either dualism or substance-thinking by itself would have been enough to make it difficult for us to understand Scripture. Both of them together have made it just short of impossible.

7. We need to get back to a more Biblical view of reality. We need a view of things that rejects both dualism and substance-thinking. We need to move past doctrines of Christ that drive a wide wedge between his person and his work, between his “Being” and his “Act.” Only then will we be able to make progress in our understanding of Jesus.

8. This may be a bit easier for us than for many in previous generations because recent research and reflection in secular places are casting increasing doubt on both dualism and substance-thinking, as we see in books like "Descartes Error."

9. The Epistle to the Hebrews is especially helpful for me on these matters, probably because of its decidedly Jewish author and audience. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,” it says. “But we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.” I take it that in these lines the word “we” refers to people like you and me. Jesus was genuinely human in every way; he was blameworthy in none.

10. “What does it say about God that the Word became flesh? What does this say about us, 'flesh and blood' that we are? What difference might all this make to how we relate to our own bodies, to the body of Christ or even to the body politic?” Questions such as there are worth discussing!

That's it for now. Thanks!

Dave

My brother and I have had long debates about this question. He is for after the fall, I am for before the fall/propensity. He knows I am right, but he has too much pride to admit it :), but I love him any way.

The key to the answer lies in the nature of the human mind. Try this experiment; draw a picture of the generic human mind. Now prove that it is true. Another corollary to this question, is an angel’s mind basically just like a human’s?

Another question, is it possible to create a robot that would be equivalent in value to a human? This is a question asked in Computer magazines from time to time.

Final question, why can’t an animal be saved, or can it. I once dated a girl who left Christianity and became a Buddhist when she was told, by her Baptist Sunday school teacher, that her beloved dog would not go to heaven. She could not accept such a God or religion.

Dave I think you would get a different picture from Edward Heppenstall's book The Man Who Is God. No Plato, No Docetism, No Descartes error, No dualism--Just Phil 2: 5-11, Just Romans 5. Just John 1. Jesus Christ: God in weakened flesh, but an untained mind and spirit, no inherited propensity to evil.

He came as the New Adam, in a body fashioned by millinia of abuse and decay but a mind fresh and clean as heaven.

I recently gave my index to E.G.W. writings to a retired G.C. officer so I cannot cite chapter and verse from her as I once could. But it is clear, that she, as did Pilate, find no fault in Him. Nor did Paul or the writer to the Hebrews.

Why cut Him down to our size,just to prove a non-scripture]al
prediction based upon faulty esigises of Revelation. Tom

Interesting discussion.

I spent the first 45 years of my life being taught, believing, and thinking that Jesus was my "example". That God-Man whose perfection I had to attain before Christ came again. I was taught, that if He could do it, so could I, if I just tried hard enough. Forty-five years of guilt and failure.

In the last 3 years I have come to realize that Christ is not my example, but rather my "substitute". While taking on humanity, He was still God, and God cannot sin, and there was no chance, that Christ would fail, if He was still God. (Which He was). The plan of salvation was in place before man was made.

I now have a Substitute and a Saviour who makes me acceptable in God's eyes through His perfect sacrifice.

I was born into sin, with a sinful nature and I will always be a sinner. I am not saved by my striving for perfection, but by accepting Christ's sacrifice.

Tom, Pat, Frank, thank you for understanding.

Dave, Herb, JB.....thank you for sharing and thinking on these things.

God bless you all,

Randy Gerber

Desire of Ages, Ch 1

"in Christ we become more closely united to God that if we have never fallen. In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken."

"God gave His only begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature."

Desire of Ages, Ch 4.

"It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been wakened by four thousand years of sin."

"He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations and to give us the example of a sinless life"

"Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."

Thank you Sona,

You so aptly provided quotes that demonstrate the difference between Christian belief and Adventist belief.

Scripture?

Tom,

Perhaps it is one of these:

" In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}
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.--Ibid., p. 1128.

These words do not refer to any human being, except to the Son of the infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that
Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the Rock Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity. {5BC 1128.6}

I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset. {5BC 1129.1}

The first Adam fell; the second Adam held fast to God and His Word under the most trying circumstances, and His faith in His Father's goodness, mercy, and love did not waver for one moment. "It is written" was His weapon of resistance, and it is the sword of the Spirit which every human being is to use. "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me"--nothing to respond to temptation. On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances (Letter 8, 1895). {5BC 1129.2}

.....................

So who is dwelling on his humanity the most...I suggest those who say we are "just like Him" therefore we can live as he did.

pat

PS.No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by His companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and He refused decidedly. In a moment He distinguished between right and wrong, and placed sin in the light of God's commands, holding up the law as a mirror which reflected light upon wrong. It was this keen discrimination between right and wrong that often provoked Christ's brothers to anger. Yet His appeals and entreaties, and the sorrow expressed in His countenance, revealed such a tender, earnest love for them that they were ashamed of having tempted Him to deviate from His strict sense of justice and loyalty (YI Sept. 8, 1898). {5BC 1117.3}

OK not to mix threads or anything but the quotes above show one of the things that really bug me about Ellen White's writing. She sometimes says things that are so flowery and romantic but make no logical sense (to me anyway). It is simply impossible that Jesus was tempted in all ways like I am. He was not a married woman with children living in the 21st century. He simply did not have the same experiences. While I can certainly believe that he was tempted in the same broad themes and I'm sure he was tempted in ways that were relevant to him, he was not tempted in the same ways.

It would also be a very different experience to be tempted when you have no propensity to evil. I'm not trying to say that Jesus had it easy but I am saying that, when you have never sinned before, your experience with temptation would be different. Someone who has never had a drink and has no propensity towards alcoholism would experience the temptation of drinking very differently from someone who is an alcoholic and has been sober for two days. We are alcoholics when it comes to sin and Jesus was not (assuming he did not have a propensity to evil).

I say this only to try and show that maybe our emphasis on how Jesus led a sinless life is misplaced. I see it as interesting and I especially appreciate the example of what a sinless life might look like but it is only partly like our lives.

I

Pat

As far as I can now recall, I first read the expression "Righteousness by Example" in your earlier comment on this thread. I doubt that anyone--no matter what his or her view on the humanity of Jesus--would endorse this idea. In any case, it's a new one on me!

Daneen

Your comments about how the "atonement" relates to all this are on target. The traditional way of handling this subject is to begin by depiciting the "person" of Jesus and then to portray his "work" or "atonement." Like many others today, I think the distinction is misleading; however, if we must use it, I think we should start with the "work" ["atonement"] of Jesus and then move back to his "person." This is what we have in mind when we say, "Jesus is as Jesus does."

Bonnie

How apt is the story of Jesus and his mother at the wedding in Cana! Thank you for bringing it up.

Randy

I think we all agree that Jesus is both our Savior and Example. There does seem to be some difference in emphasis and how they relate to each other, however. I myself think that "substitution" is one of several different ways of understanding how Jesus is our "Savior." I find that some of my friends seem to want to make it the only way. I don't think that takes into account the whole Biblical evidence. May you continue to relish God's graciousness!

JB

Perhaps the woman you once dated would not have left Christianity if she had known that in the First Testamennt of Scripture the word "soul" is sometimes used of non-human animals as well as human ones! This probably doesn't give them a free ticket to heaven; however, it does get us past the horrible Cartesian view that they are nothing but souless machines.

Somewhere C. S. Lewis discusses this. If I remember it correctly, his admitted speculation is that those animals whose identies are interwoven with ours and ours with theirs will be in the kingdom of God. It makes more sense than it might first seem.

Tom

Because it seems so dualistic go me, I have a hard time with the suggestion that Jesus "came as the New Adam, in a BODY fashioned by millinia of abuse and decay but a MIND fresh and clean as heaven." I am unable to make this square with a wholistic view of human nature.

As you state above, and as I understand it, Elder Heppenstall's theology was hammered out largely in response to the unbiblical perfectionismismsim of the earlier Robert Brinsmead. I think this was a valuable contribution. But if we defeat unbiblical perfectionismismism at the front door but inadvertently let dualism in the back, I think that overall we are probably worse off.
There might have been other ways to check the perfectionismismism of the earlier Brinsmead without running this risk.

Shawn

I understand and agree with your longstanding position. Nevertheless, I think framing the question as to whether Jesus had a "sinful nature" is less than ideal for everybody. If we answer "yes," we often leave the wrong impression that he was blameworthy in some way. If we answer "no," we often leave the wrong impression that he was exemplary in no way. Putting the issue way makes good answers virtually impossible for everybody, I think.

That's why it may be wise to stick with Scripture and say that Jesus was tried or tempted in all ways like we are, yet without sin.

Asking about what kind of "nature" Jesus had is also a big problem. It is sort of like asking. "Is the flatness of the earth more like a dinner plate or like a sheet of paper?" Well, if these are the only options, I definitely say "dinner plate." But today we know that the earth is not flat but spherical and this renders obsolete the earlier question. The same thing has happened to words like "substance," "essence." and "nature." But too often we frame our questions as though nothing has changed.

Frank

I experience what you've written as a huge mansion with many doors and I'm having difficulty knowing which to enter!

Yet no matter how we spell it out, in the end we have to say that Jesus was genuinely human, that Docetism in all its gross and subtle forms is a mistake. We also need to make it as clear as possible that he was blameworthy in no way.

My trouble is that I get the impression from some that God condemns us for things over which we have no power. No good human parent would be that unfair; I can't believe that God would be either.

A baby born HIV positive because of the irresponsibe conduct of his or her mother is a very sick child. But that infant is guilty of nothing. The infant is not blameworthy for this condition in any way.

So whatever Jesus did or did not have at his conception and birth, he would not have been blameworthy unless he himself freely and knowingly did evil.

I have heard some behavioral scientists say that chid abuse is more prevalent among conservative Christians than among secular people. If this is so, I think that part of the reason may be that viewing babies as blameworthy for things they did not do makes it easier for us to treat them wrongly.

Thanks!

Dave

Hi Dave,

Just pick a door. How about the first one?

I do understand the concern with the idea that God would condemn us for something in which we had no part. I can see the connection between this view of God and an unhealthy view of children. However, to reduce sin to something we are condemned for only after the time we knowingly make our first wrong choice, seems to trivialize the magnitude of the problem. Why is it, that no one but Jesus ever avoided making that first wrong choice, and many more after that?

This is why I see the emphasis on sin as an enslaving, tyrannical power as a possible way of understanding our dilemma. Just as the descendants of Israel found themselves born into slavery in Egypt, through no fault of their own, so we find ourselves in a similar position as Adam's progeny...we are all born into this mess, no fault of our own. But we all desperately need to be delivered out of it.

In the case of Israel, no one from the inside, who was as enslaved as they were, could deliver them. They needed deliverance from a power outside themselves. Thus, to say that Jesus, in his humanity was in no way different than us would present us with the question...how could one who was as enslaved as us, deliver us? He would need deliverance himself.

Just some more thoughts...

Frank

Beth

You have stated the problem fairly clearly. However, you have allowed extraneous matters to cloud the solution. It is true Jesus was not a woman. It is true Jesus was not an alcoholic but these are irrelevant to the question. It makes no difference whether a person is an angel, man or woman; they all have the same fundamental design. If one can pass the test all can pass the test. If one fails the test all would fail the test. There are only three elements that matter in all three cases. Jesus was tested in all three areas and he passed. It is the issue of failure that is the heart of the question. You and I are sinners, so are alcoholics. We are in need of recovery; this is a secondary issue to question of failure. If God cannot prove a person need not fail, then recovery (dying on the cross) is not necessary. God in Christ proved that no free moral agent, be he angel, man or women must sin. Once this is proven, then and only then, does the question of recovery arise.

I guess I presented you now with door#2 from my first post, Dave.

Frank

Dave et al

I guess each is so enamered with their own position yet so
hampered by limited language skills, we misunderstand each other. My position is simply: because as the Federal Man Adam's sin and hense sinfulness was inherited by me. I am born a sinner. Jesus Christ became the second Federal man without any sinful propensities (without original sin. Yet He came in the flesh of a contemporary Jew. With those givens, He lived a perfect live demonstrated God's original intention for man. Christ also submitted to a cruel death accepting in His pure humanity the punishment all sinners are due, except for the gift of Jesus Christ. Thus Christ death is referred to as a substitutionary death. Salvation is in accepting and declaring that what Jesus Christ did was necessary and sufficient for my redemption and so witness before men: that I (we) are "Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty We are free" from condemnation and death by the incarnation,life, witness, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

The idea that Christ's death was merely a model for man and when 144,000 reach moral perfection the Godhead will have been vindicated and Christ can return has no basis in the Canon. In my life long friendship with Dr. Edward Hempenstall I have found no other expression in his ministry or writings. Tom

Beth, Frank and Tom

I'll get back to you after things have eased up enough around here to let me think about what you've written.

Meanwhile, here is something that I enjoyed by Nancey Murphy in the most recent issue (March 2008) of "Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion:"

"Professors of theology have all probably had some students who would like to think that the theological task was finished with the Bible, or at least by the time of Chalcedon and Nicaea. But this is to ignore the fact that you can keep the words the same but the concepts have a way of quietly slipping out from under them. Consider the word 'substance,' so important in early discussions of Christology and Trinity. I point out to my students that the only real use we have for it now is something like 'What's that sticky substance on the garage floor?'"

Exactly!

Dave

"Why is it, that no one but Jesus ever avoided making that first wrong choice, and many more after that?"

That’s not exactly accurate.

There is an aspect that is interesting to consider.

Study what was the only "Sin" Satan argued with God about when he took Moses to heaven. It wasn’t killing the Egyptian, and it wasn’t every little impure thought from his childhood. Satan knows which sins are arguable and which aren’t. We are not so good at that.

God's definition of sin can be different at times than what we would classically think, at least as far as salvation.

Also the story of Job. If Job had only succeeded in the test due to God's power, the test wouldn’t be of Job, would it? It would be of God. The test would have been meaningless if God had intervened in it. The restrictions were only that Satan could not kill him.

If Job can pass the test with his mind and body why couldn’t Jesus even with a contemporary mind (for the sake of argument).
I believe he could have.

Many men of God spoke of their unworthiness, not in the sense of all the sins they were making or had made in the past, but in a sense of their place or position relative to the majesty of God.
When Job said in Job 42:6
“Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” It wasn’t an empirical evaluation of his sin ridden state. If it was God would be in error when he said in Job 1:8
“And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

I guess like Moses and Job and Enoch and Elijah, that kind of life is possible to live even for us regular people, so I dont see why Christ required any extra advantage as to his propensities for evil.

Michael

The men you referred to got to heaven on the same ticket as you or I. Paid for in full but none other than Jesus Christ our Lord. They were among the "first fruits" of His eternal harvest. A few got an early pass, the rest of us are still in line.

Dave

Exactly what? We can't understand Shakespeare? Tom

This discussion--and Dave's introduction--illustrates how little is known about Jesus. It does not inspire a great deal of confidence in any theory to see the picture of Jesus almost completely at the mercy of theological and historical premises. (Crossan, for instance, seems to build his entire theory of Jesus as an uneducated, working-class preacher on the assumption that he was born in Nazareth. Eisenman, on the other hand, who thinks Jesus was rather a "nazarite", sees him as an educated member of a prominent Essene family dynasty.

The Adventist discussion is rather peculiar, in in that it
tries to reconstruct the mental make-up of Jesus (and in the process sounding at times like Greek churchmen on their way to Chalcedon.)

I assume (I left 28 years ago)that the view put forth by EGW in the Baker letter (5BC 1126-30, if I remember correctly) and later put forth as official position in QOD in 1956, is the majority position within the church today. This view represents the triumph of classic trinitarianism within Adventism, and aligns Adventists with main-stream Christians.

The other view, also promoted by EGW, that Jesus was our elder brother, whose only advantage over us was that he never took that first, fatal step into sin, ultimately is rooted in Jesus as Arian demi-god, a view obliquely presented in the Conflict series. In it Jesus is Obi Kenobi and Satan is Anakin Skywalker. They are equals. That is why Satan is so incensed, in EGW's telling of the story, when he thinks that God favors Jesus over him. In a trinitarian framework this makes absolutely no sense, unless you view Satan as mentally defective--and not only he, but the thousands of angels who thought he made sense and chose his side.

(Actually, no reading of this story makes these celestial beings look good: created beings attempting a coup d'etat against the very Force who created them, is down-right dumb. And to make things worse, the ones who did not join this heavenly jihad, are supposedly still wondering who the good guy was--so that God has to allow humanity to be seared by pain and suffering for years to come simply to get through to them that Satan was the bad guy.)

This Arian demi-god in disguise, Jesus, is in the classic Adventist view a human with a divine turbo-charger, who can outrun Satan, and who promises us that we too can outrun him, once we've had our past sins wiped out and taken the requisite lessons from him. We, too, can join the master race.

Aage,
Quit holding back.
Since, "This discussion--and Dave's introduction--illustrates how little is known about Jesus.", why dont you tell us how you believe it to be?

"The NT itself is not very clear on this topic."

And we poor humans 2000 years later still attempt to clarify it!

When will we recognize that each of the Bible writers had a particular agenda when they wrote, and like the blind men and the elephant, described their views.

If it was of ultimate importance to us, why is it still a conundrum? Jesus love me this I know, that is all I need to know. So say some.

Even Paul, had contrasting and contradictory views which are no easier to discern. The early church fathers held long and heated councils on this and similar subjects, and yet they were not the final determining answer.

All these questions make Jeffersonian Deism look clearer and better all the time. There will ALWAYS be unanswered questions: Once we have them all answered, we will be equal to God. Isn't that exactly what the first two humans desired?

The divine/human nature of Christ can be "proved" either way by selective scripture. Then what? There is more than enough in the Bible to direct us where we should be attentive, and these questions are akin to what VP Garner said of the worth of the Vice Presidency.

Jesus is as Jesus does.

There is another question that has interested me concerning Jesus. Was it luck that Jesus lived only 34 perfect years? If Jesus had to come here today, could he live another 34 perfect years? Every time he repeats the probability of failure increases. It seems as some point he would sin. How can freedom be retained yet a person at some point not sin?

The Star Wars series raises interesting questions concerning life in the universe. Adventist have always believed in life on other planets mainly because of EGW. We teach we are the only sinners in the universe. There were 12,000,000 crimes in the United States last year. Other planets have been around for thousands of years yet there has never been a single solitary crime. How can that happen when people have the freedom to make either good or bad choices? Freedom doesn’t mean anything if you can’t choose the bad but no one ever makes that bad choice. Therefore Jesus is doing nothing but what they are doing, he just did it here.

JB,

You are making many presumptions and assumptions regarding other "life" in the universe. You are completely correct, in stating this idea has come mainly from Ellen. We have no scientific proof or Scripture to base these assumptions on. Only Ellen.

The whole life on other planets, and other worlds plays into the ongoing "Great Controversy" postulate, also presented by Ellen. This is all part of the "Vindicate God" theory, that also is largely derived from Ellen.

God does not need to be vindicated, and certainly not by mankind. The battle was won on the cross. Satan is defeated. I suspect the angels are curious as to why God continues to patiently wait. But then again, a father always waits for his wayward children to call home.

Randy

Dave

Is it possible that it is not either/or but both/and?

Is it possible that Jesus, in some ways, was like Adam before the fall and also, in some ways, like Adam after the fall?

Just wondering.

Chuck

Randy,

Terrific point!
Thanks.

May be the real issue is a question not an answer.

Do you believe in Salvation by Christ alone, by faith alone?

Do you believe the first four Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are a true and rational statment of the Scriptural revelation of Jesus Christ?

If so, we could say more but be cannot say less that Jesus Christ is Lord.

To me at least that is the substance and the foundation of
my theology. All else revolve around the affirmative answers to those question. Tom

Michael
I am, like most of us, better at asking questions than giving answers. For what it's worth, here is what I think:

1. Jesus was Jewish. Herein lies the key to who he was and what he preached.

2. Jesus viewed his mission in Jewish terms. He was a Jewish messiah--a liberator. Herein lies the key to his crucifixion, a punishment meeted out to real or imagined enemies of Rome.

3. I believe that his brother James and his disciples actually understood him correctly, as the One sent to restore the fallen house of David (ref. conversation on the way to Emmaus). In Matt. ch. 10 Jesus identifies his mission as one limited to the Jewish people.

4. I believe that Paul, who never met Jesus, did not get him right. Paul was nearly lynched by Jews--probably Christian Jews--by preaching the message of Galatians (Acts 21). But Paul, in my opinion, laid the groundwork for Christianity as a world religion by presenting Jesus, not as enthnic redeemer in the mold of David or Judas Maccabeus (essentially relevant to Jews only) but as a world savior.

5. I think Jesus would have died at the hands of his own people long time before the Romans got their hands on him had he preached the message of Galatians, let alone that of the Gospel of John.

Dave's cryptic adage about Jesus is as Jesus does is not bad as a summary. The problem is that I don't share his confidence that all the words attributed to Jesus were his. The Gospel of John's Jesus, for instance, looks to me like his second or third cousin, the one who graduated from Plato's brother's academy.

Dave,

You are correct, "Jesus is as Jesus does."

The "I Am" who "came" from the Father (pre-existed)in the flesh conceived of the Holy spirit of a virgin and whose face did shine as the sun on the mountain, who has life within Himself, who is the resurrection and the life,whom the Father said "this is" my beloved Son died on a cross and "does" say, "It is finished."

Jesus does vindicate God/Himself in Justifying those that have faith in Him.Rom.3:25,26.

Glory!

pat

PS. computer upgrades for a few days...later

Chuck:

I agree with Regina: terrific point!

I would say the same thing of all of us. In some ways we are like Adam and Eve before the Fall and in some ways we are like them after it.

We sometimes make the same point by saying that sin damages but does not destroy the image of God in our lives. This is a very important emphasis.

Several Above:

I have read several times in this thread that "God does not need to be vindicated," or something along these lines.

There is some truth in this; however, it seems also to be the case that the whole of Scripture can be seen as an attempt to vindicate God in the face of all the evil in the world.

I hold that there is only one intellectually serious objection to Christian faith and this is that in view of the evil of pointless suffering in the world God either does not exist or is a moral monster.

The problem of theodicy--the justness or rightiousness or fairness of God-- is the only problem worth worrying about. All other objections to Christian faith are "Micky Mouse."

I think of the "Great Controversy" theme as a meta-narrative that puts the problem of theodicy in story form, as does the book of Job and Scripture as a whole. As such it makes the problem of evil and God's solution to it more vivid and compelling than can a series of philsophical abstractions, though they have an important place too.

If we don't like the Great Controversy met-narrative, we are free to compose one of our own. This might be more difficult than we think!

Elaine

I am not a "Jeffersonian Deist;" however, I find it much more attractive than some of the views I find elsewhere.

I think it more honorable to think that God is not personally involved in our lives today than to hold that everything that now happens occurs precisely as it does because this is what God wills. This is the kind of thinking the Deists were up against and I think they were right to object.

Beth

I wonder if the story of the three temptations of Jesus in the wilderness identifies the ways Jesus was tested in all things as we are. In one of them, he was tempted to use his powers to benefit only himself; in another he was tempted to treat something that was not God as though it were; and in the third he was tempted to ask God to suspend a law of nature--gravity--in order to save him from his own foolishness. Maybe these are the primary ways we are tempted too.

Frank and Tom

I am happy to paint the human condition as darkly as possible, with two reservations. First, I cannot convince myself that the Image of God has been totally destroyed in human life. Second, I cannot convince myself that God is unfair as would be the case in my view if divine judgment condemned people for things over which they have no control.

Some might object that I am using "human reason." I wholly agree. It's the only kind of reason I have!

Thank you!

Dave

Pat
Good points. We'll miss you!
Dave

I guess the next question is: Do you believe that there will be an end time generation as perfect as Christ except cruxifiction? That Jesus Waits until there are 144,000 of such persons living in small companies fearful of their lives and tempted to their very souls as was Christ in the Wildereness or in the garden? Tom

Hi Tom

I request permission to defer an answer to this question until I have had a chance to read the primary materials regarding Last Generation Theology, something I haven't done and may not get to for a long time given the other things I'm doing.

For example, our book on "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives" went to the printer earlier this week and should be ready for distribution within the month. It may be that responses to it will keep us busy for a while.

I'm not certain that Last Generation Theology's representatives would see your last comment as an accurate summary of their views, however. Somehow, it doesn't seem quite right.

I can say that in general I don't think the future is fixed such that it will necessarily unfold in harmony with God's first choice. What will happen in the future depends partly on us. I suspect that this is one thing about which I agree with Last Generation Theology. I don't know if there are others.

For at least two reasons I believe that there will be an ultimate "triumph of God's love" over evil [Another title of the book "The Great Controversy"].

One of these is that in the long run evil self-destructs. Also, God's is supremely patient and resourceful. So, in the long run, God and goodness will prevail; however, no one knows for cetain how long or what shape this will take.

Meanwhile, at least for it, each generation is the final one. That much is certain!

That's about as far as I can go now, Tom. If or when I get to Last Generation Theology I will try to read it as I try to reading everything else: as sympathetically yet critically as possible, while looking for the big themes and patterns below the surface that connect with other schools of thought.

I also believe that the conviction that "Jesus is as Jesus does" stands or falls on its own merits.

Thanks for the question!

Dave

I have spent my life as a teacher, albeit one with some seminary training. As much as I love theology and theologians, it strikes me that many of the issues we seek to understand do not readily yield to theological approaches.

This nature of Christ issue, it strikes me, is one of them. It's quite clear that Jesus was like us in some ways, and unlike us in others. But then, that's true of everyone, isn't it? My son is like me in some ways, and unlike me in others.

And then we go to the Bible, and ask our 21st century questions of ancient documents. And we're often disappointed. Now David has introduced the question of relationships, and how they help to form character. Although the Bible writers don't use our language concerning relationships, they are not silent, either. Not too surprisingly, it is Dr. Luke--Greek in thinking, more like us, and a physician to boot--who gives us some of the more direct insight into this question.

Only Luke tells us about the pregnancies of Mary and Elizabeth. And Luke gives us this simple insight into what we would call Jesus' "child development," a verse which I memorized in first grade in church school: And Jesus grew in wisdom, and stature, and in favor with God and Man. Luke 2:52. So simple and well-known as to be overlooked. But what does it tell us about how Jesus was like us, or different from us?

Well, He grew in wisdom. He developed mentally. Contrary to some of the medieval tales and paintings of an "All-wise infant," He did not know everything at age 2. To some degree, he was more like us than like Adam, since Adam certainly learned, but the record indicates he was fully functioning mentally at the beginning.

He grew in stature. He developed in the normal way physically. Since he was not ten feet tall, we can conclude he was more like us than Adam, in this way.

He grew in favor with God and men. He developed positive relationships with others. Luke mentions God first.

In general then, we have a picture of normal--"us-like" more than "Adam-like"-- development. But unlike us, Jesus did not sin.

I suggest that child psychologist Jean Piaget can inform us here. Before Piaget, some thought that the child was a "blank slate," upon which parents and others wrote what the child was to become. Others thought that heredity was destiny-- "bad blood" for example, resulted in an evil character.

Piaget observed children and concluded that neither of those was correct. Each child is born with what he called mental "structure." Based on this structure the child acted on his environment. The environment reacted, and the child then integrated this information into the "structure." The cycle went on and on.

Relationships of course, are part of the environmental "reactions" that become integrated into that basic mental structure. But relationships are always two-way.

I would posit that it was in this "structure" that Jesus differed from us. He developed in the normal way, acting on his environment, and integrating its reactions into the structure. But something basic was different there. Call it sinfulness, selfishness, distrust, hostility-- that which we are born with-- he was not. When people in his environment reacted with hotility, "22"He committed no sin,and no deceit was found in his mouth."[e] 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. " 1 Peter 2:22-23.

These are matters of both choice and predisposition, or, if you prefer, propensity. Babies, even my delightful children, are inherently selfish. I believe that is the difference.

I do not propose to have settled the issue, but I do think that using other disciplines besides theology can be enlightening. Anyway, that's one teacher's view.

Randy,

My mind is made up don’t confuse me with the facts! This is not my way of thinking! I think the facts precede a conclusion. I wish I could live with a simplified version of life the way you do, but I cannot.

You easily dismiss EGW while ignoring the fact that she carries an authentic Messenger of God ID. If I ignore her it is tantamount to doing what Ahab did to Micaiah. Ahab refused to acknowledge Micaiah’s authenticity and Ahab paid for it with his life.

Every day science is confirming the intuition; we are not alone in the universe. We now realize the universe is vast; with every new day we hear more news that science has discovered new planets in other solar systems. The odds of probabilty point to other beings in the universe.

EGW has many statements such as this:
While we rejoice that there are worlds which have never fallen, these worlds render praise, and honor, and glory to Jesus Christ for the plan of redemption to save the fallen sons of Adam, as well as to confirm themselves in their position and character of purity. The arm that raised the human family from the ruin which Satan had brought upon the race through his temptations is the arm which has preserved the inhabitants of other worlds from sin. Every world throughout immensity engages the care and support of the Father and the Son; and this care is constantly exercised for fallen humanity. Christ is mediating in behalf of man, and the order of unseen worlds also is preserved by his mediatorial work. Are not these themes of sufficient magnitude and importance to engage our thoughts, and call forth our gratitude and adoration to God?

The Bible has many statements such as this:

You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.

You are right when you say the Battle was won at the Cross. It was a great victory but it did not conclude the War, no more than Gettysburg concluded the Civil War. Satan is still in the field and he can still win. He knows it. God knows it.

All very interesting comments but all a week ahead of ourselves. Nothing I can use for this weeks lesson on the diety of Jesus. There was a brief referral to the thought that arianism was defeated a long time ago. But we still have to answer the charge of our JW and Christadelphians friends that Jesus was a created god.

Robert

JB

Did you notice that neither Dave nor Herbie or any other answered my questions.

If a final generation is set forth to vindicate God. Why didn't God give Adam and Eve the opportunity to prove themselves as one timers" They were in far better position to do so that the present or any future generations.

Why Jesus Waits is the most ego-centric theological proposition since: "Thou shall not surely die.!" Gen 3:4

It reminds me of my first visit to Junior camp. We were all standing on the dock fully clothed in our best. I put my hands an a tied up boat. Someone pushed the boat. I tried to bring the boat back but couldn't. Soon I was hanging between dock and boat. No body would grab the rope and haul the boat in. They all watched and laughed as I finally had to let go and fell into Gull Lake. The SDA Church is in that position--neither afoot or a horse-back. Neither on the dock or in the boat. How long halt ye between two opinions? Either Jesus Christ finished the work of righteousness or He did not. I think He did. Even so come Lord Jesus. Tom

So....am I alone here in believing that Christ sacrifice was sufficient?

Is JB right when he/she says that Satan can still win?

Is JB right when he/she says that Satan knows it and that God knows it?

Do the Adventists on this forum all believe that Satan can still win?

JB, is there anything in Scripture to substantiate Ellen White quote that you provided? And what was the chapter and verse you quoted?

In awe, that you know the mind of Satan and God.

Randy

Satan can Win??

Romans 16:20 "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

Maybe I misunderstand you JB, but the last time I checked, Satan and his hosts all have a date with the lake of fire. It's at the end of the book.

He might be able to win some battles...but the outcome of the war has already been decided at Calvary. Christ won, and will win. Yes we must make sure we remain in Christ, but this fact gives us tremendous assurance!

I just wish we'd all do our theology with the Bible as our primary source.

Frank

Dave

I started teaching in 1950 and continued in one capacity or another until last fall. In every instance, I attempted to make issues as clear and simple as possible. Did Jesus finish the work of redemption at Calvary or did he just lie as He cried out "It is finished!". I see the Alpha of the eschaton at calvary and the Omega at the Parusia. We all live in the end time. Babylon has fallen. Period end of doubt and fear.
Let the heathen rage. The end is not in doubt.
There really isn't any middle ground in Scripture. We are not less and no more prefectable than Adam and Eve. Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law for me. I praise Him for it and rest in the comfort of that assurance as did Abraham, Moses, David, John, Paul and Ellen White. Tom

Ed

I very much appreciate your use of Scripture and the work of Piaget in moral developmental psychology. This is exactly the kind of thinking we need more of. I find your proposals very helpful.

But I don't think it is sinful for human babies to be self-centered. This is the way they are and this is the way God wants them to be. If they didn't make themselves the center of attention, it would be too easy for the rest of us to ignore their genuine needs.

My trouble with the long discredited doctrines of original sin that so many fundamentalists and evangelicals prefer is that they wrongly make too many things sinful that are actually normal and healthy.

If Jesus angrily cried when as a baby he was hungry, I would say "Good, Jesus! Keep it up till Mary and Joseph feed you! Thank God that you have strong lungs!"

But some of my friends say that if Jesus got upset at his parents he would have sinned. I see this very differently.

I'm not attributing these objectionable views to you, Ed, because your comment was an aside in an otherwise excellent development of thought. But I do want to register my reservations regarding much current thought about these matters.

Robert

Just today I learned at a committee meeting here at LLU that there is a significant resurgence of Arianism in some parts of the SDA world.

This surprises me.

I think the first thing we have to do is to reassert our monotheism.

We as a people are like many other Christian groups in that we have a strong tendency to slip from Trinitarianism into Tritheism. Then, as an attempt to recover our original monotheism, we often think it necessary to make Jesus subsequent and secondary to the Father.

If our monotheism were safe and secure, I doubt that challenges like Arianism would occur.

We sometimes back ourselves into a lose/lose situation. If we hang on to our monotheism, we seem to forfeit the true divinity of Jesus. If we hang on to his true divinity, we seem to forfeit monotheism.

If I had to choose between the two, I would prefer to be an Arian than a Tritheist. But I don't think we must make this decision.

A Question: If God agreed to have Sabbath Dinner with us, how many extra places should we set at the table?

If we say "three," I think we are Tritheists and that we should expect Arianism or something very much like it to emerge.

Thanks!

Dave

Thanks for your gracious comments, Dave. And I appreciate the distinction you made concerning babies.

I do not think a baby crying when it is hungry is in any way sinful. Since crying is one of the few means of communication at the child's command, and-- as studies have demonstrated--one of he surest ways of getting an adult's attention, it is what a child must do. And I heartily agree that it's common to categorize behavior which is inconvenient as unhealthy.

However, I find I disagree slightly with this statement:

"But I don't think it is sinful for human babies to be self-centered. This is the way they are and this is the way God wants them to be. If they didn't make themselves the center of attention, it would be too easy for the rest of us to ignore their genuine needs."

That statement assumes a sinful world, where "the rest of us ignore [an infant's] genuine needs." That sounds to me like "babies must be self-centered because they are born into a world where everyone is self-centered."

Now, I think there is healthy (righteous? maybe) self-concern, and unhealthy self-centeredness. But I don't want to labor that here.

As a student of child development, both moral and physical, I must reject the notion that children are born all good or all bad. Nor do I subscribe to the belief that righteousness is primarily about "doing."

I believe that Jesus is much more than what He does. And I believe He does what he does because of his relationship to his Father.

If we are what we do, then the very young and the very old aren't very much-- because they cannot do very much. But they can love and be loved.

Dave and Ed,

The supposition of original sin includes every baby born as being sinful just from the fact of birth. What a heavy debt to place on an innocent baby! (The fiscal U.S. debts are more than enough.)

If it's Darwinism, so be it. But humans have always been self-centered to the extent that if not, they would not survive the first year (as evidence shows). It is impossible to love or respect another unless we first assume that we are worthy of respect and love. Only then can we realize that is everyone's heritage, or should be.

The presumptions about Jesus' first and early years (of which nothing is written) is all merely exercises in creative writing. Even the Goaspel writers were not participants in any of these years and only used their agenda and creative skills to make up their myths about Jesus according to their previous assumptions. Fictional writing is fun to read, but one should never confuse it with historical accuracy, which it is not. Neither were any of the Gospel writers present at Jesus' birth nor could he possibly have told them such minute details.

Some of us remember hearing as school children the story of G George Washington cutting down the cherry tree, or his all-night prayer vigil at Valley Forge. Nice stories, but all legends from the mind of Parswon Weems. Such is the manner in which myths and legends are born. Much as the parables told by Jesus, the important fact was not based on their actual occurrence but the message or moral that was conveyed. We should never forget that much of the Bible is based upon myths and legends developed and embellished to promote the glorious Hebrew origins and the New Testament was all written after Jesus had left this earth and was created by various conceptions of impressions and memories that were repeated long afterward.

Jesus never claimed to be God; Paul never claimed that Jesus was God; nor did Jesus ever claim to be more than the Son of Man, a title bestowed upon a good and faithful Jew. His divinity and the Trinitarian concept was centuries in the making and was never mentioned nor a concern at all of the first century Christians. All this illustrates the evolution of Christianity and the influence of followers since that first century.

All good ideas can be found in cultures and traditions throughout our world and are not limited to any one religious belief. For the most part, Christianity began much later than most world religions: Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, and Judaism; all having guides to live by that were later incorporated into Christianity; proving that there is nothing new under the sun. Christianity introduced original sin and the need for a savior, plus the fearful concept of Hell: questionable advances which placed unbearable burdens of guilt and fear on millions since then. Many have refused to adopt such beliefs as inimicable to good mental and emotional health. One does not need religion to practice good morals; nor does good morals emanate from religion.

Sorry for the delay in jumping back in--too much on the plate. I find it most salutary to read through the kaleidoscopic comments on the nature of Christ's humanity. Most everyone of us can see the various presuppositions that are predetermining our conclusions. Wouldn't be neat if each contributor would recognize the theological or philosophical family that drives his/her conclusions? For example, a Calvinistic framework will give us much different conclusions than a Wesleyan framework. Or a framework that gives Ellen White some points worth as much, at least, as Calvin, Luther, of Wesley, etc. I also see various theories of the atonement expressed, sometimes as if there is only one way to explain this awesome subject. For me, taking the Bible as it reads, especially after checking the original languages, is much more convincing than reading it through philosophically-driven expositors such as Calvin. For instance, he was heavily indebted to Greco-Christian philosophers, such as Augustine who impregnated the medieval church with the immortal soul notion as well as original sin based on faulty biblical exegesis.

I think it may have been Pat and/or Tom that suggested that I wrote my early book in 1975, WHY JESUS WAITS, wholly indebted to M. L. Andreasen. Thanks for the compliment but as contemporaries then knew, I had not even read an Andreasen book except his excellent exposition on the Book of Hebrews. After the book was published, only then did people tell me that I was developing Andreasen's notes on the final generation. All I was using was a biblical thread plus certain EGW insights that fleshed out this thread. More later. Cheers, Herb

A few more possibilities regarding the deity of Jesus.

1. There is only one God. On this there can be no compromise.

2. In a restrictive but important sense, God is incarnate in every moment of every living being's life.

3. This is seen in the Greek and Hebrew backgrounds of our term "Word." In much of Greek culture it refered to the basic structures of the the WHOLE universe. In Hebrew it referred to that by which ALL things are made. In both of these cases the Word permeates everything.

4. This is not pantheism which holds that God and the universe are identical. For a recent articulation of pantheismn, please see the March 2008 issue of "Zygon." It is not at all akin to what we are saying here.

5. Although in some sense God is made flesh in every moment of every living beings' life, this happened in Jesus Christ in a way that is unique and unsurpassable. He is the one who most clearly exhibited what God's moral character is like and he is the one who most clearly exhibited what human life can be. This was not some accident. Rather, the Word was made flesh in Jesus in a unique and unsurpassable way for this very reason.

6. The Word is active and effetive even where the name of Jesus is not known.

7. All those who favorably respond to the way the Word becames flesh in their lives--which differs from how the Word was made flesh in Jesus by at least a trillion light years--are cititzens of the Kingdom of God here and now.

8. The word atonment actually means at-one-ment.
God is always fostering at-one-ment. The cross is unique, not because it is the only place at which God fosters at-one-ment, but because it is the unique window through which we see what God is doing always and everywhere.

9. The way God always and everywhere God fosters at-one-ment is seen most clearly in the life, death, resurrection and continuing ministry of Jesus. This is that God absorbs the negative results of evil words and deeds and overcomes evil with good.

10. Far from being unaffected by what happened to Jesus and what happens in us, God is the one who most powerfully feels the feelings of all others.

Maybe this is enough for now!

Dave

An aweful lot of heterodoxy just to demote Jesus to a place we can all compete. Maybe, just maybe, 144,000 with past the test as well or better than Jesus.

Hope so, wouldn't want Satan to win after all this fuss. Tom

We could do a Thomas Jefferson and cut out the first seven chapters of Romans and just ignore Galations.

Then we need to cut up Great Controvery into several volumes and just puff the chapter on the End-Times. Might as well go head to head with John Hagee et al.

So sad, because Romans 5 has always been such a comfort to me.
Tom

Elaine

You write: "The supposition of original sin includes every baby born as being sinful just from the fact of birth. What a heavy debt to place on an innocent baby!"

I wholly agree. Some might say that the baby is not innocent because he or she is conceived and born in sin. If the point is that we are all brought to life in circumstances that are less than ideal, I agree.

But if the point is that the infant is blameworthy for this situation, I must say that I see this issue differently.

Augustine struggled with his own sexual problems and bequeathed to all of us his negative attitudes about this aspect of life. Scripture is much healthier.

Thank you. It is good to have you back!

Dave

Randy,

I am not a woman! I am a warrior! Please do not ask me to furnish you with the bible text. You are like a man walking down a highway during a war. I pull up in a truck and say where are you going? You respond: I am going to the city. I am too, hop in I’ll give you a ride. You respond: no thank you, I don’t believe in riding in trucks, besides that truck is probably stolen and it doesn’t look road worthy. I respond: okay, have it you way, but I can tell you the enemy is closing in on you. Here is my cellphone number, if you change your mind call me, if I have the time I will come back and get you. Good luck! You respond: fine, by the way do you have a bottle of water. Yes I do, here catch. You take the bottle of water and ask me if I can open the lid!

"But humans have always been self-centered to the extent that if not, they would not survive the first year (as evidence shows)."

This presupposes that death ("would not survive") has "always" been a constant, and that humans infants were designed to live in such a world.

On the other hand, if death is an aberration, not part of the world for which we were originally created, then that self-protective reflex was not part of our original design. And if a baby with that original design was born into this world, he or she would not exhibit that trait.

In any case, I certainly agree that an infant, expressing its needs in the only means available to it, is not thereby sinning. Might as well say that when Jesus on the cross said, "I thirst," he was thereby sinning.

It distresses me that so much of our debate in the church-- and in society, for that matter -- seems to arise from hardening of the categories.

I suggest that the possible status of an infant at birth is not summed up by the binary choice of either "innocent" or "blameworthy."

In optics, there's something called "the circle of confusion," which is the smallest spot a lens can resolve. Anything smaller than that is uncertain, unresolvable by that lens. I believe that in this very area of the nature of Christ, and the status of infants, traditional theological paradigms confronts a problem beyond its power to resolve, and that's the reason for all the confusion.

I may be wrong. Ultimately the human mind is the lens, and it has its circles of confusion as well. Perhaps this is beyond our comprehension. Thank God He is! How boring eternity would be in the company of a comprehensible God.

But I live in hope, and think there may yet be a paradigm, an intellectual lens, which can at least reduce some of the confusion and reveal more beautiful detail in this question.

'All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" preceded
Augustine, Tom

Even Ellen White writes about the "propensity" to sin which she denied was in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ didn't come as Hulk Hogan, or the Bat Man.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Sou, our Lord, who was coceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. amen.

The problem is simply ever since Glacier View scholars have been playing word games right up to the edge of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Now they would kill EGW with faint praise.

I appreciate this interest in babies and their moral makeup. Again, so much in what we say is based on personal feeling, some with visceral reaction to the notion that babies are born sinners. To think that they are is to blindly follow pure Grecian modes of thinking, a la Augustine-Catholicism, tnen Calvinism-Evangelicalism, etc. Jesus permitted Himself to be born of a woman who was not immaculately conceived--she had the DNA of her ancestors, and through His bloodstream flowed that DNA. Jesus is sinless because He chose not to sin. That simply is the way Paul understood the issue in Hebrews. If Jesus was some other kind of "being on earth," then we all are up a creek without a paddle, it seems to me.

Herb

Herb,

You keep referring to philosophical presuppositions that you imply determine or at least vastly impact the final product. I agree that we should be reading the Bible for what it says as best as we can. However, I do not see that the links between the Augustinian, Calvinistic, and contemporary Adventist views such as Heppenstall is as strong as you would have us believe. I also wonder if this is not an instance of the genetic fallacy. Is it not also possible that your belief that if Christ's nature is otherwise than you believe "then we all are up a creek without a paddle" is what fundamentally drives your position, even if subconsciously? I think of Luther whose view of predestination became inextricably linked to salvation itself for him. In other words, if predestination Of course, I would not claim to be exempt from such presuppositions either, but I do not think the historical background can be traced as you continue to assert. There is so much more nuance and the Bible does paint a picture of sin as more than just instantaneous voluntary actions, it seems to treat sin as a disease. One final question that might or might not help clarify. Do you believe that all are born in need of a Savior?

Dave,

I quite agree with Ed. While the behavior of babies is quite normal and appropriate...not sinful, can it not also be seen as an adaptation to a sinful environment? Predatory behavior in the animal kingdom is something that is normal and necessary for present survival and eco-system balance, yet the Bible speaks of a time where there will be "no more death," and a time where there wasn't. From this perspective, animal predation is an adaptive order between the times.

My purpose is not to equate the behavior of babies with predatory animals, but to make the point that sin is a power that has altered, far more than we can comprehend, the whole framework and function of our exsistence, relationships, and behaviors.

By entering into our experience after sin, I do believe that Jesus took upon himself these limitations/alterations. In this, he is like us. But I have a real problem with how to handle texts like Romans 8:7, "The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be." This is described throughout Romans as the universal condition of fallen humanity...an orientation towards God that is at best powerless and at worst rebellious.

Earlier, in Rom. 7, Paul is arguing that the best that the law could do was to bring fallen people to the state of seeing and desiring the good, but leave them powerless to continually do good. Thus, Paul's point was that people under the law were then in no better condition by nature than the pagan philosophers...a condition from which they needed to be rescued. How could Jesus share this natural orientation, and still be a Savior, able to rescue others with the exact same condition? I'm aware that you brought up this objection in your article, but I'm still having a hard time getting past it even in light of the framework you are presenting.

While Jesus was born under the law, I find it difficult to accept that Jesus shared by nature with us this type of orientation torwards God and the law. If he did, would he have needed what Paul later said we all needed, to "...be transformed by the renewing of your minds?" Did he have the same need for inward transformation as we do, away from a natural orientation that was opposed to God? Maybe I'm so stuck in substance thinking, as you put it, that I can't see the forest for the trees.

I guess all this leads me to pose the question, is it Jesus is as Jesus does, or is it Jesus does because Jesus is?

Thanks...

Frank

CJ: I am interested in your insertion of Heppenstall in your historical continuum of Augustine-Calvin-Heppenstall. What is the connection? Regarding who needs a Savior, my answer is everyone who has sinned. "To him who knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin" (James 4:17, NKJV).

Herb

All this on the “humanity of Christ”? WOW!

I was only going to take a short look at the commentary on the lesson . . . and get back to doing my taxes . . . hah . . . Thanks for trying to stay with the scriptures. I did like the "both/and" mention of Christ's nature and wish it had been followed through more.

I just wanted to add a family story to the "war" part of the atonement, and everything else being finished at the cross. Appomattox had happened, the war was over. But not everyone knew, or believed. My multiple “great” died, as a casualty, in a war already won. It would seem that we are caught in a similar situation. Ahhh...I want to say so much more. Better do taxes. Now!

I look forward to reading more for Friday evening relaxation. God Bless all y’all. Brother Michael

The discussion on the human nature of Christ and whether it was a pre-fall or post-fall nature that He had is an interesting debate. I wonder if this debate is peculiar to Seventh-day Adventism or whether other groups have had similar conflicts. I ask this question because the quotations that I have seen in this thread all seem to have a genetic link to our organization.
I remember someone remarking back in the 1970s, that the problem of what kind of nature Jesus had, only arose in adventism because we needed to reconcile conflicting statements on the matter from the pen of Ellen White (EGW). Both sides have used her as support, perhaps, without taking account of her gradual growth in appreciating the divinity of Jesus and the fact that " In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead, bodily."

One must admit that her Desire of Ages statement " In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived", puts Jesus at an elevation far removed from the 'unexalted' position that He occupied in the 1858 edition of the Great Controversy. In its very first chapter, Lucifer is astonishingly portrayed as being next to Jesus in the heavenly hierarchy. In that chapter, EGW writes

"The Lord has shown me that Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Jesus Christ. His countenance was mild, expressive of happiness like the other angels. His forehead was high and broad, and showed great intelligence. His form was perfect. He had noble, majestic bearing. And I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to he consulted concerning the formation of man. He was filled with envy, jealousy and hatred. He wished to be the highest in heaven, next to God, and receive the highest honors. Until this time all heaven was in order, harmony and perfect subjection to the government of God.

It was the highest sin to rebel against the order and will of God. All heaven seemed in commotion. The angels were marshaled in companies with a commanding angel at their head. All the angels were astir. Satan was insinuating against the government of God, ambitious to exalt himself, and unwilling to submit to the authority of Jesus. Some of the angels sympathized with Satan in his rebellion, and others strongly contended for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to his Son. And there was contention with the angels. Satan and his affected ones, who were striving to reform the government of God, wished to look into his unsearchable wisdom to ascertain his purpose in exalting Jesus, and endowing him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son of God, and all the angels were summoned to appear before the Father, to have their cases decided. And it was decided that Satan should be expelled from heaven, and that the angels, all who joined with Satan in the rebellion, should be turned out with him. Then there was war in heaven. Angels were engaged in the battle; Satan wished to conquer the Son of God, and those who were submissive to his will. But the good and true angels prevailed, and Satan, with his followers, was driven from heaven.

After Satan was shut out of heaven, with those who fell with him, he realized that he had lost all the purity and glory of heaven forever. Then he repented and wished to be reinstated again in heaven. He was willing to take his proper place, or any place that might be assigned him. But no, heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven might be marred should he be taken back; for sin originated with him, and the seeds of rebellion were within him. Satan had obtained followers, those who sympathized with him in his rebellion. He and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment."

My own attitude to the debate is that I think we think we know, when in fact we only know what we think we know, and nothing else. I believe that what we do know is infinitely small in comparison to what we will know, if we are faithful. My prayer is that all of us, whether we believe in the pre-fall nature or the post-fall nature will find our way into the kindom. We will then have a zillion years to explore this subject, and may well discover that its depth has no bottom.

Howdy,

Satan can win? John 16:11 says "the prince of this world IS Judged!" he's waiting to be destroyed..Rev.20:14

As far as God needing to be Vindicated...No..."unless" He chooses to save sinners like me and you! Then we have this glimpse from Rom.3:19-31."That He might be Just and the justifier of him/her that believe in Jesus."

He shows us His justice at the cross and his righteousness in forgiving sinners that trust in Christ.

pat

Hi Tom [and Everybody!]

What is Paul saying in the last four verses of Romans 5:12?

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all BECAUSE ALL HAVE SINNED."
NRSV

Does reading these words in Greek give us the answer? If so, why? If not, where else might we look?

Thank you!

Dave

Dave

One way would be to do a self audit against the Sermon on the Mount. You shouldn't have to be told by anyone: in amy contemporary or historic language.

The further one is a away from the mirror the better one looks.

Spectrum threads seem to be getting further and further away. Tom

So many suppositions, so little verification!

To those who so glibly pronounce the picture of a world before and after sin, I ask: how much of the before and after condition is biblical? The Hebrews story is most simplistic and millions of words have been expended attempting to explain the exact situation. We know nothing of a world in Eden other than their extremely simplified version; nor do we know the true effects of sin other than what they chose to report; usually describing their struggles with making a livelihood.

Would it really be a paradise where no one worked? Nothing to produce? Fruit falling from the tree to eat? This was the ancients ideas of paradise, but I doubt it would be considered so today. With no goals to pursue, no reward of accomplishment for which we struggled, that is a childish dream.

Speculation runs wild on the formulation of a world before and after sin. Sin is a concept driven by the need for control: either by a hierarchal body or a god under the pain of death for disobedience. This IS the god described in the Hebrew Scriptures. That Jesus is also God is blasphemy to the Hebrews and has no warrant from Scripture but is a position adopted by the church AFTER the canon was closed.

Deism avoids such struggles and confusion and is pure simplicity in comparison. And it's looking better all the time!

Herb,

Yes, Jesus permitted himself to be born of a woman, but what other person ever was created in someone's womb by the Holy Spirit? He was the same as us, and also different than us in ways that we will never understand...beginning with his birth.

To me, this also impacts the view of sin as solely choice and action that you put forth. The writer of Hebrews may have stressed this view, but Romans reveals sin as an overmastering power, a realm into which all of us are born, and from which all need to be liberated. It manifests itself in a natural orientation of hiding from, casting blame upon, and rebelliousness towards God...a natural orientation to which we are enslaved. This is the legacy that we have recieved from Genesis 3. This is the object lesson of Israel in Egyptian slavery. This is what Paul is describing in places like Romans 8:7, and Eph. 2. This is a far greater dilemma than simply our immediate choices.

As far as the presumed innocence of young children is concerned...I've taught them for the past twenty years. I love them, they are wonderful, but no one has to teach them how to be dishonest, cruel, selfish, etc. It comes very naturally to them...I see it all the time. I've come to the conclusion empirically, that they didn't just all choose to sin, it's programmed into them... and us.

Thus, God is not holding anyone responcible for something they didn't do as in the RCC idea of original sin (I was born into RCC). But, he is dealing with a terminal condition that all of us are born with, as well as exacerbate by our choices...no human exceptions, save one.

For Jesus to have been exactly like us in his humanity, would mean that he would have needed one to set him free from the same dilemma as well. Thank God that he is like us enough to be our sympathizer, but different enough to be our liberator.

He was able to live the life from start to finish that no one else could ever live, and thus die the death for us that no one could ever die, and give the gift to us that no one could ever give!

Praise Him!!

Frank

Dave,

Arndt’s Greek English Lexicon prefers “came” for dierxomai in Rom.5:12. “sin came upon all men.”

Hebrews 4:15 says Christ was “without sin.”
David says in Ps.51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.”

How did that occur? I suggest scripture says that Christ was never “dead in trespasses and sins.” Eph.2:1 He was "quickened" and “fathered” of the Holy Spirit at birth just as the Spirit breathed into Adam the “breath of life.”
Adam failed Christ did not.

Regards,

pat

Frank

After my father, who was a leader in the historic Adventist movment which is decidely against the doctrine of original sin, died last August, someone gave me some of his printed sermons.

How amused I was to read one that said something good about the doctrine. These were not his exact words, but they are close:

"You know, although we can overdo this idea of original sin, it does have something going for it. I know this as a father because it is so much more difficult for me to teach my son to do the right thing than for him to learn to do the wrong on his own." I laughed!

It is often said that the doctrine of original sin is the only Christian belief for which there is more than enough empirical evidence.

I still think it is a pretty dangerous notion, though.

More seriously, I notice that you are adroitly shifting the metaphors of salvation away from a legal trial to armed conflict in which we are overpowered and held hostage by the enemy. I think this way of reframing the issue is very helpful.

I'd like us to move even further away from legal metaphors on occasion, maybe those drawn from everyday life as the ones Jesus used. But maybe, too, an educational or clinical analogy. Being liberated from ignorance and sickness is another analogy of what Jesus does for us.

Thank you!

Does it really matter, this?

Tom and Pat

My take on Romans 5:12 is that the Greek permits more than one interpretation of the last four words and that therefore other considerations necessarily come into play. The question is, "How widely should we roam in seeking additional data?"

The answer to this question probably depends upon what we are trying to do. If our sole goal is to reconstruct as accurately as possible what Paul had in mind, I don't think I would roam any further than "Romans" itself.

If, on the other hand, we are trying to clarify what we ourselves should believe, I think we should consider everything we can in Scripture and out of it, with priority upon Jesus Christ as the supreme norm.

E.L.

My reason for participating in this conversation is that over the centuries it has been much more difficult for Christians to hang on to the idea that Jesus was genuinely human, except for sin, than to stay close to the idea that he was divine, even if only of a "lower" divinity.

We Christians have a longstanding tendency to think that Jesus was "another god" walking about in first century Palestine and living a life that was so fundamentally different from ours that it is of little ethical relevance today.

In my view this is one reason why so many Christians in the United States today are so miltaristic even though it is not likely that we could say this of Jesus.

"He was not like us so we don't have to be like him. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and load the bombs."

Not all people who believe that Jesus was more like Adam and Eve are warmongers. And not all those who believe that Jesus was more like you and me oppose this nation's militaristic overkill. Life is more complicated than that.

But if we look at the issue culturally, there is a striking parallel between conservative Christianity and militaristic attitudes in this country. Again, this is not always so in specific cases. But that this is a cultural pattern today in this country is very difficult to deny.

I think our motto should be, "He was like us and we should be like him."

This has nothing to do with perfectionismismism. It has everything to do with being culturally responsible Christian men and women today.

Thanks!

Dave

I have to admit I was surprised that Spectrum skipped this weeks lesson in favor of next weeks lesson. To me if you understand the Deity of Jesus the humanity issue becomes easy. He became human so that we would know He identifies with us and so that He could be subjected to the hate and cruelty of sin, being killed and raised from the dead. Just like He promised He could do for us. So that leaves us with what ultimately do we need to know about God. That was the subject of my blog article at
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2008/04/jesus-divinity-philosophical-necessi...

For the few brave who get down past 80 comments to read something about this weeks lesson.

Was Christ nature like Adam's before or after the fall? I believe the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

In essence, what we refer to as human nature is our role as a dwelling place. A container if you will. This is true both before and after the fall of Adam. The chapter in Desire of Ages entitled (I believe) "In the temple" or something of that nature (I don't have the book in front of me) is clear in stating that God's purpose for our creation as well as the angels was to be a dwelling place for God.

We lost the privilege to be a dwelling place when sin occured. It was not until after the crucifixion that such a role was restored (mystery of Godliness - Christ in me my hope of glory). Paul says that this mystery was revealed though it had been hidden.

Christ nature was the same as ours in that He was also a dwelling place - for the Father if you will. He did not do His own will, rather the Father lived through Him just as Christ lives in us today.

So, how could He have beeen tempted in all points? The act of sin is in its essence nothing more than our thinking we can run our own lives (thus our desire to be god) in whatever aspect of our lives we reveal our own propensity. We do not want to think that we are either God's slave (inhabited by divinity via the Spirit) or the slave of the evil one (the absence of God's Spirit). We really want to be indepdent selves which only God is (thus Satan wanting to take God's role).

Christ was then actually tempted even greater than we are tempted in that He could have operated via His own divinity at anytime He chose, so His temptation was greater in that He was actually tempted to do something that He could do (run His life via His divinity outside of the indwelling of the Father) whereas we are tempted to run our own lives and in reality we can not do so. We are always a container for something else but never an indepenent-self running itself.
Whereas, Christ actually was an independent-self that could operate Himself!

Bottom line. He was tempted in all points (to be self-operating and not rely upon the Father. See the chapter in DA about Gethsemane). But, he could be tempted without having a propensity towards "sin" as we normally think of it.

Not I - but Christ!

Frank,

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested (Francis Bacon). These are my sentiments too. H.M.S. Richards Sr., at 85, said he read I Corinthians, 30 times in 30 days. I will accept your proposition that we set EGW aside and use the Bible. I would like to add this stipulation: by the age of 42.5 the person must have read the Bible 10 times and passed The Presbyterian Bible Content Exam with a score of 95 %,(whitneyhq.com).

Satan can still win if one considers what he is striving to accomplish. Write down in one sentence Satan’s goal. Remember, Satan and God were competing with each other before man became an addition to the dispute. If the war was won at the cross why would God continue to allow us to suffer? No kind hearted person allows another to suffer the least bit more than is absolutely necessary.

Winning a great battle and winning the war is two different things. After the Battle of Gettysburg, which we celebrate as the greatest victory of the war, Lincoln wrote the commander, George Meade, a letter of reprimand (but he never sent it)saying he wasn’t pleased with Meade’s performance . Lincoln finally made Meade subordinate to Grant, because Grant understood that the war was not about slavery. Slaves thought it was about slavery, abolitionist that it was about slavery, we today think it was about slavery, but neither leaders of the Civil War saw it that way. Lincoln states the issue very plainly in his Second Inaugural: Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, the other would accept war rather than let it perish.

Dave,

Two sinners cannot mate and produce a saint. This is what Romans 5:12 means.

The girl I dated thought animals were innocent. Why should they suffer just because man sinned? People’s intuition impresses them with the same idea concerning children. They do not accept the proverb: the fathers have eaten sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge. If every man is supposed to pay for his own sin, the problem is simple when applied to Angels, because they have no off spring. There is a new twist added when people mate and produce an off spring having no choice in decisions their parents made.

Dave,

How on earth did we go from Rom.5:12 to conservative Christians dropping bombs? Why not "liberal" Christians "robbing" their involuntary neighbor and sending it as debt relief to Africa.Why either thought as a diversion from the topic?

You say,I think our motto should be, "He was like us and we should be like him."

I have no problem in following Christ as our example for sanctification but not Justification...Shall we start by not getting married?

What aspect of His life and mission applies and what doesn't? I see no place where He was required to go to war as a Jewish citizen or where it was necessary to defend himself as a citizen from another citizen for an example to us.

pat

Pat

You're right, we should not get too far afield, Yet I wanted to be candid to E. L. as to why this discussion matters to me.

I believe that over the centuries the view that "He was not like us, so we don't have to be like him" has had massively negative outcomes for entire cultures, as evidenced by the millions who have needlessly been killed in the name of Jesus Christ. This is what concerns me the most.

I agree with how you relate "justification" and "sanctification" to this issue. As far as I know, everyone in this conversation does.

But back to Romans 5. If this were the only portion of Romans we had, I might be persuaded that it advances the view that "in Adam" we are all lost and that "in Jesus" we are all saved, in the sense that both sin and salvation are universal in fact and not merely in principle. But this doesn't seem to square with what this letter says elsewhere. This why I approach this chunk of the letter with caution!

JB

If I read it correctly, Ezekiel 18 argues every way it can that holding everyone responsible for what one person does should be a thing of the past. An interesting question for me is whether in Romans 5 Paul is overlooking, accepting, rejecting or momentariy forgetting in the rush of his rhetorical flourish what Ezikiel said. This is getting interesting!

Gary

Although some might misunderstand it, thinking of our lives as possible "dwelling places" for God goes along with the idea that they are temples for the Holy Spirit.

There is something very important here. This is that the more God dwells in us the more free we are of the tyrannay of the past which otherwise completely determines who we are and and what we do.

So many think that the more God dwells in people the less free they are; it is actually the other way around.

Freedom is the ability to do something other than what the past dictates. Were God not always openning up new possibiliies for us, and enabling us to accept them, thoroughgoing determinism would be the only store on the street.

Thanks!

Dave

All this is very healthy. Some references to Bible texts call for a second look. Eg. Romans 5:12 (the text when mistranslated confused the medieval church and many today) is properly translated "death spread to all men, BECAUSE all sinned." Heb. 4:15 is clearer when we emphasize the whole text: "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, BUT WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED AS WE ARE, YET WITHOUT SIN." Psalms 51:5 ("in sin my mother conceived me")is a good example of for not using the Psalms for theological positions. Compare Psa 22:9,10--"But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my moether's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." Psa. 71: "For you are my hope, O Lord God; You are my trust from my youth. By you I have been upheld from birth; You are He who took me out of my mother's womb."

Ellen caught David's insight: "Even the babe in his mother's arms may dwell under the shadow of the Almighty through the faith of the praying mother. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth. If we will live in connection with God, we too may expect the divine Spirit to mold our little ones, even from their earliest moments." DA 512.

Herb

Dave is laser sharp: "Freedom is the ability to do something other than what the past dictates." I would add only, that to be able to do what is "right," the Holy Spirit is the prod that keeps putting that choice before us no matter who we are, no matter who our parents are, no matter where we live. Our only hope, it seems to me.

Herb

Herb,
Since you often quote EGW, how do you understand this statement?

“The great doctrine of justification by faith, so clearly taught by Luther, had been almost wholly lost sight of; and the Romish principle of trusting to good works for salvation, had taken its place.”GC253.

The Justification by faith that was “clearly taught” by Luther was “forensic justification.” Do you accept the concept of forensic/legal justification?

If we are justified by faith alone in Christ without works, How do we justify or vindicate God by our works when He has already shown Himself to be just?

In surrendering his spotless soul a living sacrifice, Jesus was bearing the sin of the world; he was enduring the curse of the law; he was vindicating the justice of God. Separation from his Father, the punishment for transgression, was to fall upon him, in order to magnify God's law and testify to its immutability. And this was forever to settle the controversy between Satan and the Prince of heaven in regard to the changeless character of that law. {ST, December 9, 1897 par. 5}

It was in order that the heavenly universe might see the conditions of the covenant of redemption that Christ bore the penalty in behalf of the human race. The throne of Justice must be eternally and forever made secure. . . . By the sacrifice Christ was about to make, all doubts would be forever settled, and the human race would be saved if they would return to their allegiance. Christ alone could restore honor to God's government. The cross of Calvary would be looked upon by the unfallen worlds, by the heavenly universe, by Satanic agencies, by the fallen race, and every mouth would be stopped. In making His infinite sacrifice Christ would exalt and honor the law. He would make known the exalted character of God's government, which could not in any way be changed to meet man in his sinful condition. {LHU 257.2}

pat

Pat: You have always been theologically keen. Regarding Ellen's quote on GC:253 regarding jxf being taught so clearly by Luther, we have no problem. His core issue was the fallacy of trusting in human works for salvation, such as the spiritual crime of indulgences and those certificates of pardon. He rested his case on the supremacy of the Bible rather than papal supremacy.

The fundamental issues in the phrase, jxf, are these: 1) the same Greek word for "justification" is the same word for "righteousness." Calvinism and many Lutherans have emphasized "justification" (defining it as "forgiveness" in the phrase jxf); Wesley more properly defined it as embracing both the grace of pardon and the grace of enabling grace that empowers the life with divine help and that is why the phrase "righteousness by faith" seems to indicate the fuller meaning of dikaiousune. But still the same Greek word.

On GC:256, Ellen outlined more clearly what this sense of righteousness by faith meant: "The grace of God in Christ is the foundation of the Christian's hope, and that grace will be manifested in obedience. Wesley's life was devoted to the preaching of the great truths which he had received,--justification through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, and the renewing power of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, bringing forth fruit in a life conformed to the example of Christ."

Regarding forensic justification, I can see some aspects of this Calvinistic emphasis that I want to include in the glorious truth of rxf, but when we analyze "why Jesus died" and "why Jesus came the way He die," we must include far more as we describe the part Jesus plays in fulfilling His role in the atonement.

It seems to me that the ellipse of truth always contains two loci. In jxf (rsf) we see the twin gifts of pardon and power even as we see the two roles of Jesus: as sacrifice on the cross and as High Priest fulfilling His role as Paul saw it in Hebrews 4:14-16. (here we see again the ellipse: the grace of mercy and the grace in enabling us to be willingly obedient. Cheers! Herb

Pat, Tom, Frank [and others!]

I do not understand why it is necessary to paint the circumstances in which we are born in hues that are so dark that if Jesus actually were one of us he could not have been our Savior.

What does this say about us? What does this say about God?

I sometimes get the impression that the worse we look and feel the better God looks and feels.

It is as though our relationship with God were like a see/saw: The "lower" we go, the "higher" God goes and vice versa.

Therefore, we outdo each other in painting how loathsome and disgusting we are, from conception onward.

I don't think that this is how decent earthly parents relate to their children. Must I think this of God?

JB,

Satan's goal...to become God; to seize his position, his power, and his throne.

Revelation tells me, he tries to storm the city; he ends up in the lake of fire instead. IOW...he's doomed, he has no chance of winning this war. Romans 8:32-39, Rom.16:20 say as much. Why? Jesus won it on Calvary! Either Calvary is enough, or it isn't. I choose to live in the assurance that it is, and that he is.

Why we still suffer is a question that none of us can fully answer. Paul, however, gives us hope:

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

'For your sake, we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.'

No, in all these things we are more than conquerers through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. 8:35-39

Talk about a transformed view of suffering! A view based on the assurance of God's victory in Christ.

Somehow, I don't see Paul wondering and in doubt about the outcome of this war. It's already been settled. He's just exhorting us to walk continually in the power of this assurance, and in the power of God's Spirit, as we continue to live between the times.

Thanks...

Frank

Dave,

You already know what I said about my relationship with the children I teach. You also know what I've observed of their natural behaviors over twenty years time. They are a mixed bag, just like the rest of us. But, I, and every other teacher I know, has to spend a lot of time teaching and modeling what is healthy and good (and we certainly don't always do it ourselves), and no time on the opposite, because that just seems to come so naturally. I think good parents would say the same, without compromising the love they have for their kids.

As far as God, and sin, and salvation are concerned, either we take places like Genesis 3, Romans 1:18-3:20, Romans 7, and Ephesians 2:1-3 as accurate descriptions of the human condition, or we don't. Yes, we are also described as being "fearfully and wonderfully made;" along with many other positive biblical depictions of our humanity. But, until we face the depth of our need, as sketched out in the above passages, then we can never fully grasp the height of the salvation God has given us, and that Jesus has accomplished for us.

This is not at all about making God look better by making ourselves look worse. It's about being brought to our senses about our situation. Could this be part of the dynamic behind parables like the prodigal..."When he came to his senses..." and the contrast between the Pharisee and the tax-collector, one saw the depth of his need and the other didn't?

In light of the above, to reduce Jesus, in his humanity, fully to our level, and sin to nothing more than individual discreet choices stemming solely from our will as some continue to advocate, is, to me, a trivializing of our dilemma. It also downplays the awesomeness of the gift that has been given to us...for free!

Out of this gift we find real life... and truly live!!

Thanks...

Frank

Frank

Thanks for the clarification.

I think that if we all make your moves we will need to think of sin and salvation in ontological rather than ethical terms. This makes the basic problem the kinds of beings we are rather the kinds of choices we make.

My problem is that it seems to me that from the story of Adam and Eve onward, Scripture portrays sin in ethical terms. I think it constantly presents us with options and implores us to choose the better.

Also, I think it never forgets that sin damaged but did not destroy the image of God in human life.

Perhaps we have reached a fork in this road. If so, the world will keep spinning.

Many thanks!

Dave

Dave,

No man is an Island, entire of itself; each man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main: if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend or of thing own were; each man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.(John Donne)

Ezekiel 18 is a dispute between Ezekiel and the captive Jews. They are all slaves in Babylon. The Elders are complaining that God has treated them unfairly. They think they should not have to pay for their sins; instead children should pay for parent’s sins. Ezekiel says it’s wrong to think that way, in fact, God is going to put an end to that kind of thinking; everyman must pay for his own sin.

Ezekiel is here restating the first rule of freedom. Other ways to state it:
You must take responsibility for the choices you make;
Cause and effect;
Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.

He goes on to say God had mercy on your fathers, by temporally setting aside the rule: Every man must pay for his own sins. He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. However, now you wish to take advantage of that mercy and make it the rule. If mercy became the rule no generation would ever be punished. Justice must be enforced at some point. You cry out, but why us? Your generation receives the punishment of your fathers, because you have the advantage of hindsight, the consequences of their sins plus your own experience, but instead of repenting you have only gotten worse. God has decided 70 years of slavery might teach you and your descendents a lesson that you don’t forget: Every man must pay for his own sin.

Herb,

This is not about personalities but historical and scriptural accuracy. I was blessed to attend Reformed Theological Seminary to know for myself the meaning of this issue of the Reformation.

Here is the problem as I see it.

You are correct in saying the word for righteousness and justification is the same in Greek, dikaios. Whereas holiness comes from hagiasmos and is used to describe sanctification.

JBF and RBF are used by Luther and Calvin to refer to the way in which we are "reckoned righteous/just" before God while yet sinners. We are not "made righteous/just" but "reckoned" so by "faith alone."

Grouping "RBF/JBF" as including Justification and Sanctification takes us back to the council of Trent and places "your position/understanding" firmly in line with the RCC understanding of salvation...which seems rather ironic to me.

One of two things is occurring with EGW IF; repeat IF, she later implies that JBF/RBF includes sanctification or growth in holiness.

I suggest it would be: 1) she really did not understand Luther and the Reformation principle of JBF Alone OR
2) She was disingenuous in suggesting we are heirs of the Reformation for her own purposes.

Either is problematic in how we view her if your understanding of her is correct and the same as your position. She would be uninformed/wrong or deceptive for implying we are Reformation heirs which seems to be the import of much of the GC book.

The Reformers do not downplay sanctification or holiness but insist we are not "justified by our own holiness." We have an alien righteousness. It is Christ's personal obedience and righteousness that is "reckoned to us by faith alone."

Having been Justified by faith we have Peace. Otherwise we never know if we are holy enough...thus no peace...our SDA tradition in practice. We are stuck in the desert unable to cross over Jordon discussing how we can vindicate God and "why He waits" because the "giants" are to big to cross over into the promised land.

“ For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being made holy.”Heb.10:14.

Regards,

pat

Frank and Dave,

It is necessary to properly diagnose a problem before the correct treatment is made. I agree with you Frank on our nature and I know myself.

Pat:

Light years separate Council of Trent from Ellen White and I can add John Wesley. RxF never includes human works such as Catholic sacraments, etc., and misplaced motives in tithe-paying, etc. Here we all agree. Wherever "justification" or "righteousness" (same word) is used in Romans, e.g., it refers to the act or process by which a man is brought into a right state as related to God. The act is not to be construed as indicating a mere legal transaction between God and man. The element of character must not only be eliminated from it; it must be foremost in it. Justification is more than pardon. Of course pardon is necessary in the glorious act of justification (who can live without it daily?) But justification aims at character change. It contemplates making man himself right. Faith is not a substitute for righteousness but that faith is righteousness. In other words, the right understanding of faith opens up the new relationship with God. The act of faith is far more than "glaube"--mental acceptance that Jesus died for sinners(a Lutheran misunderstanding of Luther). The act of faith inaugurates a righteous life and a righteous character. This is not a man-made, inherent holiness, because his righteousness is derived from God. Thus a justified person is not merely declared righteous by a legal fiction without reference to his personal character. Justification which does not actually remove man's wrong relationship with God (enmity with God) is not Pauline justification--the weakness of forensic justication. The declaration of righteousness must have its real and substantial basis in the man's actual moral condition.

I think that this reflects John Wesley and Ellen's understanding. Nothing is more true, that if you are right with God today, you are ready if you should die today, or if Jesus should come today. All this is light years away from any distraction and red herring such as "perfectionism. I listen carefully to Paul when he wrote that the intention of justification is conformity to Christ's image (Rom 8:29, 30)

I appreciate you keen interest in this central NT truth, Pat.

Herb

Hi Pat and Frank and Other Friends!

Perhaps some preliminary comments.

(1) It matters little to me whether an idea comes from Luther, Calvin or the Council of Trent. The truthfulness of the claim is what most concerns me.

(2) I think most agree that SDAs do descend from the Reformation. Very few historians suggest that we descend from, let's say, Greek Orthodoxy.

(3) There is considerable evidence that some of our roots go back to the Radical Reformation, as seen in the Anabaptists and so forth. These were the groups the Lutherans and Calvinists did there best to exterminate.

(4) Whether we use the term "Righteousness by Faith" in reference to only "Justification by Faith" or both it and "Sanctification by Faith" is also of little concern to me. I'm happy to go along if you want to restrict RBF to JBF. Let's then choose another term to cover both.

(5) I like "the Christian way of Life" or CWL.

Now, on to what appears to be surfacing as a major question: Does Scripture portray "sin" in its primary and primordial sense as an ethical or ontological category?

Let's stipulate up front that no matter which one we choose the other remains in a secondary and derivative sense. So, we do not expect an "either/or" answer but rather "first/second" or "primary/secondary" or "ultimate/penultimate" ones, or something along these lines.

Keeping this question in mind, I reread the whole of this thread in search of the portions of Scripture we have cited. These are the ones I have spotted so far.

I cite only the chapters in order to save my time [bad!] and highight the importance of context [good!].

Genesis 3
Job 1
Job 42
Psalm 22
Psalm 51
Psalm 71
Ezekiel 18
Matthew 10 [or 16?]
Luke 2
John 1
John 2
John 16
Acts 21
Ephesians 2
Philippians 1
Romans 1-3
Romans 5
Romans 7-8
Romans 12
Romans 16
Hebrews 4
Hebrews 10
James 4
I Peter 2
Revelation 20

Although I probably missed some, this strikes me as a very impressive list for a discussion as informal as this one!

We have not yet cited perhaps the most relevant verse, though I am applying it to a different set of issues: "Let all be fully convinced in their own minds." Romans 14:5.

With this I conclude my participation in this thread. Tomorrow or shortly thereafter, Leigh Johnsen will post the commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for April 19. I do not know who wrote it or what it says; however, no matter what, I hope the conversation will shift from here to there.

Thank you, Everybody! This is as good as it gets!

Dave

Hi Dave...

Yes...not either/or, but both/and. I believe in our case, after the fall, ontological and more fully, relational, leads to ethical. We choose to sin because we are sinners, separate from God...we don't become sinners because we each choose to sin. However, this does not negate that our choices do dynamically affect our being. But, apart from Christ there is no possible way to precede from glory to glory, we proceed from dysfunction to dysfunction, brokeness to brokeness.

Thank God that one made the choice for us, and that in coming to him, and finding relationship and reconciliation through him, I find a new freedom to learn to choose what God deems ethical, righteous, and loving (hence the true purpose and meaning of Torah...instruction, direction, the way)...which I never truly had before meeting him.

My brokeness can be healed.

Thanks...

Frank

Dave's emphasis on the ethical over the ontological in discussing the sin problem seems to me to be biblically correct. We all surely have sinful propensities, that is, we are all burdened with the weakened DNA of our ancestors which obviously affects pre-natal proclivities/weaknesses. That is ontological for even Jesus. But the promise in Gen 3:15 also affects everyone ever born to some extent, depending on how enlightened each one's immediate family has responded to that light (John 1:9). According to Romans 2:14-16, the Holy Spirit gives everyone enough light to respond to His nudge and that is the ethical moment. Much of the Bible certainly highlights the ontological argument that sin surely is pervasive. The issue, it seems to me, is what has God promised to reverse the ontological consequences. The basic question remains: What does God want to accomplish with His plan of salvation?
Cheers, Herb

Satan asked for a pardon and reinstatement before Adam and Eve were created. God said, no His decision was final. Does this bit of factual information belong in the fact pattern of the discussion?

These discussions seem like the three blind men who try to describe an Elephant!

Can the blind lead the blind? (Jesus' own question)

How can earth-men describe the only Man Who came from above and returned there? (John 3:12-13.

---Arlin

Hello, Everybody !
This is a very interesting and hot debate. Usually heat is not good for our brains. Each position may be worthy of mention, but if it is not attested by divine revelation, it is just a good opinion.
What is the basis of our opinions? I understand that many of us are motivated my simply logical or theological reasonings (e.g. "if Jesus had.... then He would not...."). Some from both camps bring Ellen White quotations, and both camps have good proof-quoatations, because, as I know from experience, her writings support both claims: 1. Jesus had sinful flesh; and 2. "Be careful, be very careful how you....". On the whole, Ellen White's position is more like Waggoner and Jones, supporting "Christ's sinful nature". But she seems not to be so consistent, as in various other theological topics. Moreover, if Ellen White's position would be diachronically consistent, her writings cannot be the final authority. And so we must turn to Bible.
The Bible, on the other way, may also have various assertions. There is no biblical writer who discussed at large this topic. Thus each biblical quotation must be seriously analized in context and then weight the implications. What kind of inspiration had biblical authors ? Let's quit just simple proof-texting. One may bring just Phil 2: 5-11, just Romans 5, just John 1. Neither of these quotations are compelling for the other camp. Another brings just John 1:14 (became SARX, flesh; see 3:6), Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:14-16; 4:15; 1John 4:2 and so on.
On the whole, I see more biblical support for the "heretical" position about "Christs's SINFUL flesh", than for the "orthodox" view of the mystical purity of Christ's flesh. It was affirmed that Christ was different from us, because of His virgin and Spirit birth. If this were the main problem, God could make all of us be born of virgins. But virgins have the nature of "men" too. They are not radically different. Actualy, some of them could even worse. As regards the Spirit, God offered to us a new birth, from the Spirit, from God.
I understand the grave implications of these affirmation, but I cannot help but note that the most important objection against the "heresy" about "Christ's sinful nature", is the the phobia of "perfectionism". Not because this is an unorthodox belief, but because it is too spiritually compelling (be like Him !)to be accepted by most evalngelical-minded believers. This is the theological mood in your contry, where most are Protestants and Catholics. In my country, the majority is Eastern-Orthodox, and these traditional Christians (somewhat similar to Catholics) have an interesting theology about the redemptive importance of Christ's completely human nature. So, where is the orthodoxy, and where the heresy ? Thank God, SDAs have no official statement on this exact point.

To admit a weakened flesh, but an untained mind and spirit is not enough, becaus the physical wekeness or human needs of Jesus are not so relevant for our spiritual struggle. If Jesus did not feel the full strength of human temptations, then His victory is not ours but in a forensic way. Why Scripture speeks about being like Christ? About christian perfection ?
God bless all of you!
Florin Laiu

A story of two wolves on “aspects” of the “Divine and human nature.”

"The Two Wolves"

One evening an old Cherokee "Christian" told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, 'My son, the battle is between two 'wolves' inside us all.

One is Evil.
It is autonomy from God, anger, envy, jealousy, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego.

The other Wolf has “traces” of Good.
They are a felt need, desire and seeking for joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: 'Which wolf wins?'

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed ".

---------------
As humans, we received the “cancer” of "evil attitudes"(which lead to evil deeds) at our fall and separation from God. Christ was never “separated.”

In Christ we receive the Spirit of Christ and enjoy the “double cure”…saved from wrath and He is “making” we who believe whole!
Rom.8:1,11-16.

PS. “a little editing to a good story.”

pat

We have been addressing the wrong question.

The central question is: Was the Christ's Life, Death, and Resurrection necessary and sufficient for the salvation of mankind or not?

Does it remain for a final generation to replicate Jesus Christ's life in order for God to be fully and finally vindicated?

The Reform view is that what Christ did was necessary and is sufficient atonement for the sin of humanity.

The human nature issue comes into play only if one questions
the sufficiency of the Christ event.

The E. G. White et al would have us believe that it will take a final perfect Christ-like generation to fully vindicate God. Until then the issue hangs in the balance.

That flies in the face of the Gospel and makes man his own savior. What Christ did was necessary and is total sufficient for my acceptance before the Throne of Grace. Even so come Lord Jesus. Tom

Tom,

Well said,Ditto!

And...there is also silence in Augusta now. A question.

How many days a year is "the course" open to members at Augusta?

pat

Thanks Pat.

I don't know the answer to your question. The last play of this season will be in about a week when all the volunteers get to play one round. Then the course is closed until the fall. I believe it opens in October and run until about a month before the Masters.

I was invited to play a round with a local member. At that time I had just played at a driving range. I thanked the member and said, I didn't think I should do my first round at the Augusta National. He said, Thanks Tom, most guys wouldn't have told me that until after the first hole. Now that I can break 100, I haven't been asked. It is one grand
course. We had a very good week. Sunday the wind was up and so were the scores.

Tom

Thanks Tom,

My brother Joe in Atlanta got to play the "volunteer week."
He still "glows."

Pat

JB wrote: "Satan asked for a pardon and reinstatement before Adam and Eve were created. God said, no His decision was final. Does this bit of factual information belong in the fact pattern of the discussion?"

Please enlighten us as to the source of your "factual" information.

Elaine,

Per your request.

Satan trembled as he viewed his work. He was alone in meditation upon the past, the present, and his future plans. His mighty frame shook as with a tempest. An angel from Heaven was passing. He called him, and entreated an interview with Christ. This was granted him. He then related to the Son of God that he repented of his rebellion, and wished again the favor of God. He was willing to take the place God had previously assigned him, and be under his wise command. Christ wept at Satan's woe, but told him, as the mind of God, that he could never be received into Heaven. Heaven must not be placed in jeopardy.
Spirit of Prophecy vol. 1 page 29, EGW.

The initials EGW are authoritative because she carried and authentic ID; certifying her as a Messenger from God, Who informed her of the factual events.

You do not have to accept her as authority, but let me remind you if you are contrary. First, your justification argument, upon evaluation, must be proven to be right. Second, it must be reasonable, i.e. rational. Suspicion is not good enough. Third, you must be prepared to answer. God is not pleased when people appear before him, having ignored his Messenger, and they have nothing to say.

However, I cannot tell you with certainty what God will do. He does things that surprise me. I even say to myself,” I never would have done that”. Humans are only a lower court; they cannot tell how the Supreme Court will decide a case. I will try to estimate your odds. There were 12 disciples. Thomas doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. This was against the good advice of his well known friends. If we divide 1/12=8.33%. Judas took this risk and lost. Thomas took it and won. Why God rewarded Thomas is not easy to ascertain. Jesus did mildly reprimand him saying, blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed.

JB
Out of curiosity, do you feel that you are fairly representative of Adventists in North America in your views on EGW, as expressed in your last posting? I know that back in the day, when I was a member, this was very much the view held by people who did not read Spectrum Magazine*, which was the vast majority. In other words, do you feel at home in today's church with your conservative views?

Aage

*About Spectrum, I remember talking to D.A. Delafield, long-time secretary of the EGW Estate, in Vienna, Austria in 1975, during the General Conference Session, about this magazine of which I at the time knew nothing, and wondered if I should subscribe to it. "Why should you?" Delafield snorted. "These people have done nothing but tear down the authority of EGW!" The magazine was a lion back in those days, not the lamb it is today (at least, in its comtemporary setting.)

Aage--for those of us not able to read let alone subscribe to Spectrum back in 1975 when the magazine "was a lion"--can you tell us more about why you say it's a "lamb" today. Is that because the content is different? Or have the positions articulated/questions explored in the "lion" days become more accepted by a broader swath of the church now?

Spectrum was founded as a Vox Pop A voice of the people.
Serious students and Scholars were being by passed during some very hot debate periods in the Church from Barnhouse to Brinsmead. Now that it is a free for all web site it certainly has opened the door to a wide "spectrum" of thought--carrying of course the tensions the accompany strong willed people. I don't know as yet if it is a good thing or bad.
It certainly is open. Hopefully will lead to redemptive
ends. To the extend it furthers the Gospel--God's Speed.
To the extend it protects the status quo--it is merely redundant. Tom

Aage,

I don’t know if I can answer your question to your satisfaction, but I will try.

First, there are about 1,000,000 SDA members in North America. Approximately 30% do not associate with the church at all. Another 20% are too young to know anything worth evaluating. Another 20% come to church from time to time for various reasons. This leaves about 300,000 effective members. I will give my opinion of these.

I would put them on a normal distribution curve. 67% support EGW as a true Messenger of God, but in practice they don’t go to any extremes in diet, clothes etc. They do accept her theological perspective. They control the church for the most part. The other 33% may be divided into 16.5% on the lower side and 16.5% on the higher side. By lower side I mean liberal, on the high side conservative. Conservative means, Wildwood or Weimar, et al. The lower side takes EGW with a grain of salt. My own position falls in the middle group.

Before there is any evaluation of the authenticity of EGW, the authoritative nature of the Bible standard must be established. If the Bible is false, EGW is meaningless. Without a good standard no credibility can be given to any rational conclusion. I think of the Bible and EGW as a team. The Bible provides the main instruction, EGW provides support. I think this puts the church in a strong position if God decides to provide more support in the future. How would we recognize a new messenger from God? We rely on the same tools we used to authenticate EGW.

Tom--are you a subscriber of Spectrum magazine? The print journal still exists and is going strong (and still is a scholarly piece). This website is a new addition to continue the conversation in between journal issues and to a broader audience (and, as you noted, it's open to anyone to comment on). I just wanted to make sure you (and others) are aware that there's much more to be found by being a subscriber (the most recent issue has a great example of scholarship that I can't imagine church-funded magazines publishing).

You can request a free issue from subscriptions@spectrummagazine.org or call 916-774-1080.

And, Daneen, I would P.S. that the current issue is web-accessible now, here: http://spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/issue/vol_36_no_1_winter_2008

Daneen
To some extent I believe you're right when you wonder if Spectrum today only appears mild-mannered because "the positions articulated/questions explored in the "lion" days [have]become more accepted by a broader swath of the church now".

Still, I get the impression (I don't subscribe to it) that it does not take anywhere near the same amount of courage to put out today's magazine as was the case in the 1970s. My impression is that it focuses on safer subjects, especially subjects that EGW did not address. Somehow, I can't see church leaders snorting with fury at the sight of today's Spectrum (but then again, maybe church leaders also have changed.)

JB
I appreciate your orientation. It was enlightening (although I doubt reality is quite the respector of standard deviations that you indicate.)

An excellent P.S. Rich! Yes, for those of you who aren't journal subscribers, please do check out the current issue which has been made available entirely online:
http://spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/issue/vol_36_no_1_winter_2008

Aage--I'd actually love to hear from some church leaders about this latest issue, but then, the church leaders I know are happy that these issues are being discussed, so maybe things have changed. Also, I know that my Adventist friend group (early 30s) just aren't concerned with EGW as the church was in the 1970s (or, if we are it's a far-cry from what was the issue then--we grew up knowing about the plagiarism challenges, the split in the church over Des Ford, etc.. I think the journal is trying to not just reflect the concerns of the same readers who started out with it. I know I'm much more interested in talking about social justice (esp with regards to those the church has typically shunned), missional living, how to be relevant with regards to modern issues, how to change the church's benchmarks (i.e. numbers-driven evangelism), creation care, etc. If those issues don't get leadership upset because they tend to also want those things, then that's good news for the future, me thinks.

Daneen

I like your agenda. Tom

Daneen: Fascinating discussion comparing the antediluvian SPECTRUMS and today. I remember well a GC committee I was on (college deans and presidents) about 1964 when Hirsch, GC Head of Education, was presenting the concept of SPECTRUM as promoted by Branson. I forget if I made the motion or whether I seconded the motion, but we pushed it through as a timely and reasonable venture. Yes, there were some who had dark thoughts for some time. Once in awhile I too winced when authors forgot to see the Big Picture and worked out of personal presuppositions. Sometimes an author focused on the human container and not the content--which didn't help those "dark thoughts." But the overall purpose of the package has been achieved, it seems to me. Cheers, Herb

Tom: You are a real chip off a real block--knew your Dad with much appreciation. Regarding the Reform position on the atonement, I am sure that you have examined the various theories of the atonement, of which the Reform position is only one, each theory depending on their linkage to previous philosophical theologians, especially Augustine. Only when we accept the biblical ellipse of truth do we see the limited views of such theories as the Calvinistic Reform theory. It seems to me that the purpose of God's plan of salvation is to prepare people for heaven, people who have demonstrated that they can be trusted with eternal life. And He provides all that is necessary--grace of pardon and the grace of power, all of which is prompted and delivered by God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yes, after much review of historical theology, we can be grateful for the lucid overview we find in Ellen. She meets every theological test and she is not the wax nose that some have wanted to reduce her to. In other words, I find that Ellen satisfies my head and my heart. Cheers, Herb

Thanks, JB, for confirming your position, as well as others who are Adventists: conflating EGW and Scripture is so ingrained as to become one and the same in their minds. Is she the standard or is the Bible? If any non-canonical writer adds to or contradicts what is written in the Bible, which has trump power?

Because she fictionalizes and adds to the Bible, I, and many others consider it just that: fiction. Without the Bible as the final standard, there is nothing to prevent EGW, Joseph Smith, or Mohamed from producing whatever they desire to write.

By what criteria are you able to judge her qualifications as a messenger? Only by unquestioning acceptance of her contemporaries, as you were not there when she had her visions: visions that she claimed to be of God and later were found in the writings of many authors. When she claimed that she was shown, in reality it was her being shown what another writer had previously written, which she copied. Originality claimed is not the same as originality maintained. She also had excellent editors, otherwise, her "original" writings wouldn't pass 3rd grade muster (check out the early Signs and Reviews for her unedited manuscripts).

Herb

Thanks for the compliment. At our parting, days before he died, dad said: "I'm sorry Tom I am not leaving you an inheritance." I said: "Dad you made a man out of me, what more could a son ask?" When I get to heaven, I hope I get to see him. He'll be so much nearer the throne than I. I might have trouble.

As you know, I am not a theologian. But I am a reader of Berkhof and Hodges. I don't think you are congruent with either of them. Tom (I prefer Berknof--don't agree with either on election.) There I am Weslyian. 100%. Tom

Tom: I could tell what you have been reading. I have read Berkhof and Hodges and others in the Reformed camp--they are driven by Calvin-Augustine. In fact, Berkhof was the standard systematic theology textbook during my seminary years and it was very clear that the teachers didn't have a clue as to its heritage and how it fit into Wesleyan-White theology. The best book I have ever read on Augustine is the much acclaimed AUGUSTINE by James J. O'Donnell (HarperCollins Publishers, 205). And a neat summary of Augustine is found in Roger Olson's THE STORY OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: TWENTY CENTURIES OF TRADITION AND REFORM (INTER-VARSITY PRESS,1999). I don't want to sell you a book (so forgive me)but my latest, THE FORK IN THE ROAD, A REVIEW OF QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE (1957) goes into all this from an historical framework. Cheers, Herb

Comments were made regarding Ellen White's rhetoric in the early SIGNS for example. I have read them beginning with the first issue, April 1, 1875. I would suggest that very few college graduates in any department would surpass her writing skills as printed. Some of them were transcribed speeches and she surely did not have an editor in between her lips and the audience. Of course, especially in her earlier years she wrote as a teenager would write. Her public discourses till her latest years were forceful, coherent, pleasant with illustrations, and always had application. Further, every good writer has a bevy of careful editors and we thank the good Lord for them. Of course, all this belies the false charge that she was verbally inspired--she did her best to nuke that idea. Cheers, Herb

Elaine
You are confusing me again.
Above you say,
"Because she fictionalizes and adds to the Bible, I, and many others consider it just that: fiction. Without the Bible as the final standard, there is nothing to prevent EGW, Joseph Smith, or Mohamed from producing whatever they desire to write."

Bible as the final standard? You just told me in the other thread that this was your belief with reguards to the bible,

"What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

Can you help me out?

Elaine,

The Bible is the standard by which all messengers of God are tested. After she was authenticated as a Messenger the only question left was for her to inform us of her Message from God. Every Messenger that God has ever sent has been rejected by the majority of the people of that day. A minority receives it and passes it on to the next generation where it gradually becomes sanctified. However, as soon as a new messenger arrives we go through the same process. The same message is a stepping stone for some and a stumbling block for others. God sends a man, some people say they will not listen to a man, so he sends a woman, but some say they won’t listen to a woman, but wisdom is justified of all of her children.

In my own life it was not the Bible alone or EGW alone. It was these plus my own experience that made the difference. The writers of the Bible and the EGW are dead. They can’t help you in a crisis in your life. It is the God they wrote about that you have to find in your individual private life.