Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 3:49 pm Post subject:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Of course Christ was tempted but there was no sin for the second member of the Godhead to make bread out of stone or to dazzle the world by a wonderful display of miracle working power. Christ was tempted to exercise his rightful authority. He could have started the final judgment then and there if he wanted. It was only a question of time and place. We're not talking about a crime of moral turpitude. The meaning of "sin" for Christ "if Christ fell" would only be a matter of Christ changing His mind about a preexisting arbitrary agreement between Himself and the Father.
Ellen White wrote:
He [Christ] vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory.
This quote references Satan's victory over Adam when Adam was sinless in Eden. If you can't see the straightforward meaning of Ellen White's statement, perhaps you're wrong about other things also.
Here's the full quote:
"When Christ bowed his head and died, he bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in his human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory." (The Youth's Instructor 4/25/1901).
What I said was correct. I suggested reading the full statement in context would show that she was talking about Christ's human nature, not Him having an unfallen human nature. She says, "He overcame in human nature." She says, "This is the privelge of all." What is the privelge of all? To overcome in human nature. Can we overcome in the nature of unfallen Adam?
Here is a quote where the Spirit of Prophesy is dealing explicitly with the type of human nature Christ assumed:
"The Creator and the creature, the nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus,--the Son of God and the Son of man." (Bible Training School 2/1/08).
Here she states in the clearest of terms that Christ took the human nature of fallen Adam.
Neither she, nor her colleagues, nor anyone who published in the Seventh-day Adventis church before the mid 20th century, held the position that Christ took the humanity of unfallen Adam. This position simply did not exist in our church. It would not have been possible for her to have held this position without turning the church upside down.
Regarding temptation, both the Bible and Spirit of Prophesy state in the clearest possible language that Christ suffered the same temptations that we do. Here's an example from the Spirit of Prophesy:
"Many professed Christian look upon this portion of the life of Christ as they would upon a common warfare between two kings, and as having no special bearing upon their own life and character. Therefore, the manner of warfare, and the wonderful victory gained, have but little interest for them. Their perceptive powers are blunted by Satan's artifices, so that they cannot discern that he who afflicted Christ in the wilderness, determined to rob him of his integrity as the Son of the Infinite, is to be their adversary to the end of time. Although he failed to overcome Christ, his power is not weakened over man. All are personally exposed to the temptations that Christ overcame, but strength is provided for them in the all-powerful name of the great conqueror. And all must, for themselves, individually overcome. Many fall under the very same temptations wherewith Satan assailed Christ." (Redemption 64)
Please note the following sentence, taken from the above, "All are personally exposed to the temptations that Christ overcame."
Christ was tempted to induldge appetite, just as we are. The same can be said regarding the other temptations we have.
We are not tempted to not use our divine power. This is a temptation that Christ had that we do not have. It appears you believe Christ was tempted in no points as we are, yet the Bible says He was tempted in all points as we are.
Let me ask a question. If we are tempted in something of which Christ was not tempted, how do you suppose we can obtain victory over that temptation? Do we somehow forge a righteousness which does not exist in Christ?
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 11:05 pm Post subject: Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil
tewall wrote:
Christ was tempted to induldge appetite, just as we are. The same can be said regarding the other temptations we have.
Your opinions are frightening. You seem to be saying that if you are tempted to pick up a prostitute then Jesus was tempted to pick up a prostitute. If you are tempted to murder, then Jesus was tempted to murder. I suppose you also believe that when you think about telling a lie to cover-up a first lie, then Jesus must have experienced that too.
tewall wrote:
Let me ask a question. If we are tempted in something of which Christ was not tempted, how do you suppose we can obtain victory over that temptation? Do we somehow forge a righteousness which does not exist in Christ?
You're the one who sees no righteousness in Christ!
You seem to believe that there's power in denigrating Jesus and speaking of him as an unrighteous weakling who is constantly struggling with every degenerate thought and temptation known to man.
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:04 pm Post subject: Re: Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil
Eugene Shubert wrote:
tewall wrote:
Christ was tempted to induldge appetite, just as we are. The same can be said regarding the other temptations we have.
Your opinions are frightening. You seem to be saying that if you are tempted to pick up a prostitute then Jesus was tempted to pick up a prostitute. If you are tempted to murder, then Jesus was tempted to murder. I suppose you also believe that when you think about telling a lie to cover-up a first lie, then Jesus must have experienced that too.
tewall wrote:
Let me ask a question. If we are tempted in something of which Christ was not tempted, how do you suppose we can obtain victory over that temptation? Do we somehow forge a righteousness which does not exist in Christ?
You're the one who sees no righteousness in Christ!
You seem to believe that there's power in denigrating Jesus and speaking of him as an unrighteous weakling who is constantly struggling with every degenerate thought and temptation known to man.
Before addressing the issues you've raised here, I would like to restate some things that have come up during this thread. Before doing that I'd like to thank you for your participation.
I have raised an historical argument at several points. This argument had not been addressed. It is a very strong argument, which cannot be sidestepped by selectively interpreting E. G. White. (I'm not accusing you here. It's human nature to interpret things as we want to see them. We're all subject to this.) This is the argument:
a) None of her contemporaries held this view.
b) If she had held this view, her contemporaries would have known it.
c) She routinely corrected theological errors of far less importance than the humanity of Christ. If it had been wrong, she would have corrected it, not an obscure letter that noone would see for decades, but up front, which is how she always, without exception, dealt with such issues.
d) She helped plan the church's rebuttal to the Holy Flesh controversy, which consisted of arguing the post-lapsarian position.
e) She was present at E. G. Waggoner's 1901 G. C. sermon which refuted the Holy Flesh movement by presenting the post-lapsarian position.
f) She explicitly endorced a specific sermon of W. W. Prescott whose theme was the post-lapsarian position.
g) She endorced Waggoner and Jones preaching of righteousness by faith. When there were errors in their presentations, she corrected them (such as Waggoner stating the Christ couldn't sin because He had perfect faith, or warning Jones of presenting righteousness by faith as not having any conditions). She was silent regarding their preaching on the human nature of Christ, even though that was a cornerstone of their theology.
h) There were no published statements articulating the pre-lapsarian position from the SDA church until the late 1950's.
To give an analogy, one could argue that William Miller could not have held to the Theory of Evolution. Such a theory did not exist, so he could not have held it. Similarly, the pre-lapsarian theory of the human nature of Christ did not exist within our denomination. It would not have been possible for Ellen White to have held it.
Please acknowledge the historic argument I have presented, or provide a counter argument to the points I have raised.
A second argument I presented was based on the following quote:
There were in [Adam] no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." ST 9/3/00
I proposed an interpretation which was based on the following points:
1) She contrast Adam to Christ on the point of Adam not having corrupt principles
2) It is not possible to assert that Christ had corrupt principles. Therefore such a statement must be referring to His flesh
3) She affirms my conclusion in writing "He bore 'the likeness of sinful flesh'"
You set aside this interpretation without providing one of your own, although I asked you to several times. Please explain how you would interpret the above statement from ST 9/3/00.
You stated that Christ could not be tempted to do evil. I proved this is incorrect with the following quote:
"Unless there is a possibility of yielding, temptation is no temptation. Temptation is resisted when man is powerfully influenced to do a wrong action and, knowing that he can do it, resists, by faith, with a firm hold upon divine power. This was the ordeal through which Christ passed." (SDABC Vol. 5, 1082).
Please acknowledge my point, or provide a counterargument as to why this quote does not prove that Christ was indeed tempted to do evil.
Now on to your most recent post. You assert my ideas are frightening, but they are not my ideas. I have merely quoted others. The Bible says Christ was tempted in all points as we are. The Spirit of Prophesy says he was tempted to indulge appetite.
"We remember who endured temptation in the wilderness, faint, pale, and hungry on the field of battle that He might work out for man a glorious victory. And when we are tempted to indulge appetite at the expense of reason and health, we remember how Christ overcame Satan that man might become victor on his own account and in his own behalf." (Sermons and Talks Volumn Two, p. 34)
"Under Satan's direct temptations the children of Israel suffered appetite to control reason, and they were, through indulgence, led to commit grievous sins which awakened the wrath of God against them, and they fell in the wilderness. He thought that he should be successful in overcoming Christ with the same temptation." (1SM 274)
Please note:
1) Satan tempted the children of Israel to indulge appetite
2) He tried to overcome Christ with the same temptation
Thus Christ was tempted to indulge appetite. Not a frightening opinion of mine at all.
Regarding the righteousness of Christ, you repeated my quote, which was asking you a question, but did not answer the question. Here is what I believe about the righteousness of Christ:
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3, 4)
Without Christ we would not have had the power to overcome sin. Christ took our nature in order to impart to us the power to overcome. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in that flesh so that we might do the same. I am asserting that in overcoming sin we are simply doing what Christ Himself did. Christ paved the way, and by faith His victory becomes ours.
You are asserting that we have to do something Christ did not do. You are asserting that while Christ overcame sin in unfallen flesh, we must overcome in fallen flesh. To do such would be to forge a righteousness which did not and does not exist in Christ.
I repeat my question: If we are tempted in something of which Christ was not tempted, how do you suppose we can obtain victory over that temptation?
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
