A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Did Jesus have ascendful human nature?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Hi tewall,
Welcome to the forum. I'm no expert on SDA church history but it seems to me that there was less of a struggle in the Seventh-day Adventist church of the 19th century over both the human and divine nature of Christ than there is today.
With respect to the specific question raised in the opening of this thread, I've noticed that different Seventh-day Adventists are able to formulate an answer to the mystery from the writings of Ellen G. White, coming up with diametrically opposite conclusions. Based on EGW, one chap in our jail forum says, in effect, that Jesus Christ had Satan's nature. Naturally, I have reached the opposite conclusion.
Since the Midheaven and High Mountain forums are for teaching truth as this ministry sees it, I am of course interested in what side you take in the great debate. Did Christ have a human nature that was degenerate, tending to pull him downward toward moral depravity or did Christ have ascendful human nature?
Thank you for the welcome.
Well I'm not an expert in church history either, but I do know something about it. The controversy regarding the divine nature of Christ was indeed a big deal, and the statements from the Desire of Ages in 1898 were of great importance in resolving the controversy. E.G.W. wrote that in Christ was life, unoriginal, unborrowed, underived. She also wrote that He was Jehova, the self-existent One. These statements pretty much settled the controversy.
Regarding Christ's human nature, I believe the way our pioneers did.
Around the turn of the 20th century, there was a fringe movement teaching a heresy referred to as the "Holy Flesh" movement. Their teaching was that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall (the pre-lapsarian position) and that in order for us to reach a condition of sinlessness to meet Christ on His return, it was necessary for us by way of a Charasmatic type experience to have our natures transformed so they would be like His pre-fallen nature. After this transformation they believed those who had this experience could no longer sin.
Now the interesting thing about the controversy is how the church met it. We could have just said that it was wrong to believe that our natures needed to become like Adam's before the fall. Instead the way the church decided to handle it was to argue that they were wrong to believe that Christ had the unfallen nature of Adam. Ellen White was well aware of this and provided counsel. It is inconceivable that she would countence meeting error with error. If she really believed in the pre-lapsarian position, she could not have allowed the church to argue the post-lapsarian position.
In 1901 she was present when E. J. Waggoner addressed the General Conference. His sermon was proving that the Holy Flesh teachings were unbiblical because of its adherence to the pre-lapsarian position. Again its inconceivable that she would not correct such teachings presented so publicly if she disagreed with them. She many times corrected errors of far less consequence than the humanity of Christ.
In 1895 she specifically endorsed a particular sermon of W. W. Prescott given at Avendale. She said of Presott's sermon, "Truth was separated from error... The power and Spirit of the truth come from human lips in demonstration of the Spirit and power of God. The Lord has visited Brother Prescott in a remarkable manner." The sermon's title was "The Word Became Flesh", and it articulated the post-lapsarian position. The human nature of Christ was the subject of the sermon from beginning to end.
From E. G. W's own pen, I would requote the following, "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 weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. "
Please note the phrase, "What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." This shows that Christ's heredity invovled more than getting tired or hungry.
Here's another statement, "Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' In the wilderness, weakened physically by a fast of forty days, He met the adversary. His dignity was questioned, His authority disputed, His allegiance to His Father assailed by the fallen foe." (Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, September 3, 1900)
This one takes a little thinking through. The key part is this: There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh."
Note that Christ is being contrasted with Adam. Adam had in him "no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil." BUT Christ bore "the likeness of sinful flesh".
The first time the pre-lapsarian position was expressed in an SDA publication was September 1956 in the Ministry magazine. How E. G. W. could adhere to a position which didn't even exist within our church is, at the least, problematic.
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Did Jesus have ascendful human nature?
I believe that you've evaded answering my respectable question, just as you've evaded valid reasoning that disagrees with yours, such as Ellen White's letter to W. L. H. Baker:
"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."
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:46 am Post subject: Re: Did Jesus have ascendful human nature?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
I believe that you've evaded answering my respectable question, just as you've evaded valid reasoning that disagrees with yours, such as Ellen White's letter to W. L. H. Baker:
"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."
I think I clearly answered the question. In fact I explained my answer in great length. I'll try again:
I believe in the position which was supported by our pioneers, which was the post-lapsarian position. I quoted the following twice,
"But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors."
What were the results of Christ's earthly ancestors? They were sin of every sort. Christ accepted the results of the great law of heredity, accepting humanity as it stood after 4,000 years of sin. I don't see anything unclear or evasive in this.
I also made two arguments, which were:
1) It is not possible for E. G. White to have held the pre-lapsarian view for historical reasons.
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.
The second argument was that the following quotation enunciates the post-lapsarian position in a devastatingly clear manner:
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
She contrasts the fact of their being no corrupt principles in Adam with Christ. This is significant! The inference is that in Christ there were corrupt principles. Now to say that of His character would be blasphemy. Hence the statement must refer to His flesh, which is what she says: "He bore 'the likeness of sinful flesh.'"
In Christ's flesh were corrupt principles, tendencies to evil. I don't see any other way to interpret this statement.
Now this is not in any way presenting Christ as a man with propensities to sin. Saying Christ had propensities to sin would be implying He had committed sin. Christ was made to be sin for us, but He knew no sin. He was holy and sinless. He never sinned in thought, word or deed.
However, He accepted the great law of heredity. He united fallen humanity with divinity by becoming a member of the fallen human race. By so doing, He "restored the whole race of men to favor with God." 1SM 353.
Thank you for your replies. I really like the way your forum is set up.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject: Evasion or confusion?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Did Christ have a human nature that was degenerate, tending to pull him downward toward moral depravity or did Christ have ascendful human nature?
tewall wrote:
I think I clearly answered the question.
In Christ's flesh were corrupt principles, tendencies to evil.
Now this is not in any way presenting Christ as a man with propensities to sin.
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: Evasion or confusion?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Did Christ have a human nature that was degenerate, tending to pull him downward toward moral depravity or did Christ have ascendful human nature?
tewall wrote:
I think I clearly answered the question.
In Christ's flesh were corrupt principles, tendencies to evil.
Now this is not in any way presenting Christ as a man with propensities to sin.
You restated a question you had written, cut three sentences from three different paragraphs that I had written and pasted them together, and then added an emoticon. I'll attempt to respond.
The question that you asked is an inprecise formulation posted in a way to suggest a false dichotemy. The theologically accurate way to ask the question is if I believe that Christ had a pre-lapsarian or post-lapsarian human nature, and I've answered that several times.
I don't have any idea what an "ascendful" human nature is. I've never seen such a term, and it is to the best of my knowledge not to be found in either theological circles nor in any inspired writings.
What the Bible says is, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." (Heb. 2:14). I believe this. I believe Christ partook of the same flesh we do.
The Spirit of Prophesy says "In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man." (Bible Training School, February 1, 1908) I believe this too. In Christ the nature of Adam, the transgressor (i.e. the nature of Adam after the fall) is united with Christ's own sinless nature; or as the SOP puts it elsewhere, "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature". (MM 181)
So summing up: I believe
a) the post-lapsarian view.
b) Christ partook of the same flesh we do.
c) Christ took the nature of Adam the transgressor.
The second sentence you posted from what I wrote is: "In Christ's flesh were corrupt principles, tendencies to evil."
This was taken from 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
She contrasts the fact of their being no corrupt principles in Adam with Christ. This is significant! The inference is that in Christ there were corrupt principles. Now to say that of His character would be blasphemy. Hence the statement must refer to His flesh, which is what she says: "He bore 'the likeness of sinful flesh.'"
As I stated, I see no other way to interpret this statement than the way I suggested. If you have another interpretation, I would love to hear it. To state that Christ took our human nature or bore the likeness of sinful flesh is not to suggest that Christ committed sin, which stating that Christ had propensities of sin would do.
I also laid out the argument from an historic perspective that E. G. W. could not have held the pre-lapsarian view.
Eagerly awaiting your response, and still really liking your forum (did you put this together yourself?)
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:28 pm Post subject: Re: Did Jesus have ascendful human nature?
Quote:
"What I mean by this is that the two natures are essentially the same because one is the mirror image of the other."
What are the two natures being referred to here? Before this statement you wrote:
Quote:
The equivalence may be illustrated with astronomy. Consider the ambiguous and humorous phrase: “Up is the direction away from the earth.”
You also quoted the statement that it was as difficult for Christ to not use His divine nature as it is for us to rise above our natures (paraphrasing idea). Why was would this be difficult for Christ? It was difficult because He had a self which had to be denied. "Even Christ pleased not Himself." Rom. 15:3. "I came not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." John 6:38. These statements only make sense if Christ to our fallen nature. Had He taken the unfallen nature of Adam, there would have been no conflict. It would not have been as difficult for Christ not to use His divine nature as it is for us to rise above ours -- it would not have been difficult at all.
Hebrews tells us Christ was tempted in all points as we are. James tells us we are tempted when we are drawn away of our own desires. Our own desires are desires which reside in our flesh.
The Spirit of Prophesy tells us, "If the indulgence of appetite was so strong upon the race that, in order to break its power, the divine Son of God, in behalf of man, was required to fast nearly six weeks, what a work is before the Christian in order that he may overcome even as Christ overcame! " (The Faith I Live By, p. 230). If Christ did not take our nature, how could a fast by Him have broken the power apetite held on us? What would a fast by Him have to do with us?
The Spirit of Prophesy also tells us that when Satan tempted him with the kingdoms of this world, Christ looked away. Why did Christ look away? What charm would this earth hold for Christ had He not taken our nature?
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:20 am Post subject: Did Jesus have a sinful human nature?
The controversy is over describing the "human" nature that Jesus had while on earth. I am only aware of four contending interpretations:
1. The nature that Jesus possessed and struggled with was to not manifest His divine nature.
2. Christ's human nature was degenerate. It tended to pull him downward toward moral depravity.
3. In Christ's flesh were corrupt principles, tendencies to evil, but the mind of Christ was so much higher than His sinful flesh that Christ had no evil urges, no propensities to sin.
4. The human nature of Christ was exactly like that of Adam before the fall.
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:14 am Post subject: Re: Did Jesus have a sinful human nature?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
The controversy is over describing the "human" nature that Jesus had while on earth. I am only aware of four contending interpretations:
1. The nature that Jesus possessed and struggled with was to not manifest His divine nature.
2. Christ's human nature was degenerate. It tended to pull him downward toward moral depravity.
3. In Christ's flesh were corrupt principles, tendencies to evil, but the mind of Christ was so much higher than His sinful flesh that Christ had no evil urges, no propensities to sin.
4. The human nature of Christ was exactly like that of Adam before the fall.
I believe in option 1. You believe in option 3.
Traditionally the topic has been considered as including two interpretations; pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian. Or in less theological terms, Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall or after.
Now saying that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall is recognized as being only sort of like Adam's nature before the fall, because Adam before the fall did not get tired or hungry etc. Those who hold to this position usually speak of a spiritual nature which is separate from a physical nature. The physical nature was like Adam after the fall, to the extent that Christ could get tired, hungry etc., but the spiritual nature was like Adam, meaning that Christ could not be tempted from within. He could only be tempted like Adam before the fall.
So no one holds to position 4. There is also no one who holds to position 2, except maybe Baker. At any rate, it is not a recognized position within Christianity, let alone Adventism, and never has been. Position 3 I would state as follows: Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature and in that nature He never sinned in thought word or deed, although He was tempted in all points as we are. Or alternatively, He bore the likeness of sinfull flesh and condemned sin in the flesh.
Position 1 does not refer to nature at all. The following would make more sense, "The struggle that Jesus possessed was to not manifest His divine nature." What you wrote doesn't make sense. It implies "manifesting a divine nature" is itself a nature. Your sentence goes "The nature Jesus possesed and struggled with was ..." (now comes a definition of that nature) "to not manifest His divine nature". "to not manifest a divine nature" is not a nature. Do you see how this doesn't make sense?
So probably what you believe in the standard pre-lapsarian position, which is that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall in terms of not being able to be tempted from within, but had some aspects of post-fall humanity in that He could get tired, hungry etc.
Please note that if this were true (i.e. Christ had the "spiritual" nature of Adam before the fall), then what you are contending (it was difficult for Christ not to use His divine nature ) could not have been the case. It is only if Christ took the fallen nature of Adam that a struggle makes sense.
I've written quite a bit, and it has been with the assumption that you are an honest, inquisitive fellow who doesn't have all the answers and is willing to change his mind if presented with evidence. This is the hallmark of Adventism. It is the mindset that, by the grace of God, I strive to have, and I can say in a number cases I have had to adjust my thinking in mind-numbing ways as I understand more of the gospel.
I have presented a number of arguments based on logic and evidence in the previous posts, none of which have been addressed. If you are willing to address them, and willing to change your mind if that's where an invesitigation of the truth leads, I am willing to continue this dialog (and am equally willing to change my mind, if that's where the evidence leads).
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject: You still believe in option 3
In reference to Adam, of course I mean spiritually. Christ could not be tempted to do evil.
Historically, Seventh-day Adventists were widely accused of teaching that Christ had a sinful nature. There are plenty of "historic" SDA statements that give this impression.
The line "Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature" is a quote from Ellen G. White. Christ also took our sins upon himself. The meaning of this phrase is obviously atonement related. Ellen White never said "Christ had a sinful nature." There was sin on Him but not in Him. There's a difference.
Animals exhibit many inborn patterns of behavior. Instinct is based on genetics. Our human proclivity to sin is a part of fallen human nature. I have defined the human nature of Jesus without making a comparison to pre or post fallen humanity. His nature was ascendful, the exact opposite of sinful. This instinct that Jesus had was a second nature to him. Jesus also knew within himself that he must restrain himself and not display his divine nature. I have just explained how Christ could have had two natures.
Ascendful means full of an ascending quality. If you don't understand what ascendful human nature is, I'll have to work on making my meaning clearer.
You interpret Christ's nature as that of a weakened super-being that could be tempted with evil. I don't believe it.
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:02 pm Post subject: Re: You still believe in option 3
You're saying you don't believe Christ was tempted? I've not seen anyone hold to that. That is so patently contrary to inspiration, I can only believe I have somehow misunderstood what you're saying.
All 4 Gospels tell us Christ was led into the wilderness where He was tempted by Satan. They even tell us what the tempations were.
The Spirit of Prophesy tells us not only was Christ tempted, but He was tempted as we are, and in our fallen nature:
"Christ was tempted in all points like as we are. As man's representative, he stood the closest test and proving of God. He met the strongest force of Satan. His most wily temptations Christ has tested and conquered in behalf of man. It is impossible for man to be tempted above what he is able to bear while he relies upon Jesus, the infinite Conqueror.
In the desolate wilderness, Christ was not in so favorable a position to endure the temptations of Satan as was Adam when he was tempted in Eden. The Son of God humbled himself, and took man's nature, after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family." (Redemption 30)
This tells us:
1) Christ was tempted in all points as we are.
2) Christ did not take the nature of Adam before the fall, but the nature of man after 4,000 years of sin.
3) This nature had the results of 4,000 years of physical, mental, and moral degeneracy.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying there was no sin in Christ, unless you mean He never committed sin. That's what that phrase is generally taken to mean. Of course it's true that Christ never committed sin, but that doesn't mean He didn't take our nature.
You're right in pointing out that we should not say Christ had a sinful nature. You'll notice I've not said that. This could easily give the impression that Christ had committed sin. In addition, although Christ was fully human, as we are (without having committed sin), he was not only human. This the Scripture is always careful to clarify, by using such expressions as "likeness". For example, Christ was sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. 8:3) He was made in the "likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7). He was really a man (did not simply appear to be one), but He was not only a man. He really did have flesh like we have, "sinful flesh" the Bible calls it, but He did not cease being sinless or divine, neither of which are we.
I don't think describing Christ's human nature as "ascendful" does anything useful. It just appears to me to be a play on words. You can get a second opinion from someone other than me, but I don't think it means anything. If you simply state you believe the pre-lapsarian position, or that Christ took a sinless human nature, or the nature of Adam before the fall, I think you will be easily understood by anyone.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:54 pm Post subject: OK. You don't understand Christ's ascendful human nature
tewall wrote:
You're saying you don't believe Christ was tempted?
I said, "Christ could not be tempted to do evil." Scripture says, "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). "You interpret Christ's nature as that of a weakened super-being that could be tempted with evil."
tewall wrote:
Christ did not take the nature of Adam before the fall
Ellen White never sanctioned your false pre/post dichotomy. I suppose that means you will cease using it, effective immediately, because of your respect for Ellen White and because she used the pre-fall of Adam analogy: "He [Christ] vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory."
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:39 am Post subject: Re: OK. You don't understand Christ's ascendful human nature
Eugene Shubert wrote:
tewall wrote:
You're saying you don't believe Christ was tempted?
I said, "Christ could not be tempted to do evil." Scripture says, "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). "You interpret Christ's nature as that of a weakened super-being that could be tempted with evil."
tewall wrote:
Christ did not take the nature of Adam before the fall
Ellen White never sanctioned your false pre/post dichotomy. I suppose that means you will cease using it, effective immediately, because of your respect for Ellen White and because she used the pre-fall of Adam analogy: "He [Christ] vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory."
Of course Christ was tempted to do evil! That's what temptation is.
"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. He could not have been tempted in all points as man is tempted, had there been no possibility of His failing. He was a free agent, placed on probation, as was Adam, and as is every man. " SDABC Vol 5, 1082
As God, Christ was not tempted. He was tempted as man.
Regarding the quote that Christ overcame in the same nature as Adam, you will notice that the context is that Christ overcame in human nature, not unfallen human nature. Neither she, nor any of her contemporaries, nor any one in the church who published writings in the church had that view (pre-lapsarian) until the mid 20th century, so such a view by her would have been impossible. It also would have contradicted her own writings, which I have quoted to you.
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.
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
