27.11.11
Names deleted.
Dear Sister ......
The Bible & SOP in red, all else in blue. I am in black
THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS
Great to hear from you. My sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Hope all's well with yourself and the family. We are both physically well, not so sure about the fitness though – could always do with more exercise. Yes, long time no see, however, was glad to catch up with .... albeit very briefly and learn of the work in China. China is a huge challenge but we must have faith and trust that the Lord will finish His work through means and ways we have no idea of.
The Fiji Living Waters Mission School commenced classes in the latter half of the year and appears to be going well so far. The pressure is on most days for the teachers at the school. Please keep the school in your prayers as it requires ongoing support, spiritually and financially. It is open to all English speaking folk including Koreans of course so please encourage them to take time out in the islands.
Thank you for your thoughts on the human nature of Jesus and the question below. The great hope for humanity is that while possessing a fallen nature, He did no sin in it. He is the only human being with a fallen human nature who did not commit a single sin from the manger to the grave. He did not allow that fallen human nature of His to express itself in the transgression of God’s law.
Can you imagine the consequences if He had transgressed the Law of God? He would have been lost. We would have been lost. The Father would have lost His Son. Can we appreciate how serious and risky it was for Him to partake of our fallen human nature with its strong natural inclination to sin? “After the fall, it had been impossible for man with his sinful nature to render obedience to the law of God, had not Christ, by the offer of his own life, purchased the right to lift up the race where they could once more work in harmony with its requirements. {RH, September 27, 1881 par. 11}
He risked everything, even His own eternal existence:
“Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul. {GCB, December 1, 1895 par. 22}
“…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.” (Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages. Page 49 ‘Unto you a Saviour’)
“He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, His divine attributes.Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation. Man must pass over the ground over which Christ has passed. As Christ overcame every temptation which Satan brought against Him, so man is to overcome. And those who strive earnestly to overcome are brought into a oneness with Christ that the angels in heaven can never know. {7BC 926.5}
He could have been lost had He sinned and not by him possessing our fallen nature because possessing such a nature is not sin. The testimonies repeatedly state that Christ took our fallen human nature. That His human nature was “identical” with our own and not only identical with our own but “perfectly identical” is what she says. He was not in a lost condition while possessing such a nature.
“The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished. ……” Ms. 81, 1893, p. 11. (Diary entry for Sunday, July 2, 1893, Wellington, New Zealand.)
One single sin on His part and He would have been lost.Can we appreciate the difference between that one single sin on His part which would have spelt doom for Him (and us) and the fallen human nature He partook of?
The “Sin is Nature” folk, like the Immaculate conception doctrine of the Papacy, believe the possession of a fallen nature is SIN and hence one is condemned and lost as a result of possessing such a nature and naturally must preach “….another Jesus, whom we have not preached…” 2 Cor 11:4, a Jesus with a different human nature from us, in order to avoid the so called lost condition of a sinful nature but the letter I sent you demonstrated the completeness of His fallen human nature both physical and non-physical (spiritual). Please do not equate nature with sin. NATURE is sinful but is not sin itself. There is a difference and until one recognizes the difference we will have this ongoing confusion.
Remember Jesus accepted the great law of heredity and partook of the same nature we inherited from fallen Adam. Note the apparent contradiction of the following quotes from Sister White. The contradiction is only apparent and not real and must be correctly interpreted and understood else we will arrive at an erroneous conclusion when reading them in isolation:
The following quotes demonstrate that Christ DID have certain kind of passions that we have:
1. “He blessed children that were possessed of PASSIONS like His own.” E.G. White, Signs of the Times, April 9, 1896.
2. “Though He had all the strength of PASSION of humanity, never did He yield to temptation to do one single act which was not pure and elevating and ennobling.” E.G. White, In High Places, p155.
The following quotes demonstrate that Christ did NOT have certain passions that we have.
3. “He was a mighty petitioner, NOT POSSESSING THE PASSIONS of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are.” E.G. White, Testimonies Vol. 2, p509.
4. “He is our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, but NOT IN POSSESSING LIKE PASSIONS. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil.” E.G. White, Testimonies Vol. 2, p202.
What is the difference between quotes 1&2 and 3&4? The point is Christ inherited certain natural passions of ours as part of the sinful human nature he partook of (quotes 1&2) and these He controlled and never allowed to be expressed in sin. Notice that while possessing “…all the strength of PASSION of humanity, never did He yield to temptation to do one single act which was not pure and elevating and ennobling.” He never sinned while possessing those passions.He never allowed those passions to result in the transgression of God’s law.
The other type of passions and propensities which we have cultivated as a result of our sinning or having sinned repeatedly, and which Christians must eliminate from their experience, He did not have at all (quotes 3,4). Hence the SOP is not contradictory. See previous email as to what He inherited as a human.
It is what happens as a result of the fallen nature which is important and not so much the possession of such a nature because clearly we both agree that Christ possessed the same sinful fallen nature as us and we both agree He never sinned in that nature and we both agree that He was not in a lost condition while possessing a fallen human nature.
Neither was He condemned at all in that same nature because He never exercised that nature to its natural predisposition to sin, to transgress God’s law. He kept that fallen nature under the control of the Holy Spirit by a full surrender of His fallen humanity to God and hence condemned sin in the flesh (sarx). He lived the sanctified life from His birth to the cross. Remember He was the seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15. a fallen woman, not a woman with a sinless nature as the Catholics proclaim. The only way He could have been lost was if He had transgressed God’s law and not because He possessed a fallen nature.
As it was for Him so it is for us - He had to surrender everything about that fallen nature to the control of the Holy Spirit.
The sinful nature is to be kept under the control of the Spirit of God. The transforming grace of Christ will bring the will into harmony with the will of Christ. …. {GCDB, February 6, 1893 par. 15}
“There is not an impulse of OUR nature, not a faculty of the mind or an inclination of the heart, but needs to be, moment by moment, under the control of the Spirit of God.”--PP 421 (1890). {LDE 65.3}
“Human nature will continue to be human nature, but it can be elevated and ennobled by union with the divine nature. It is by partaking of the divine nature that men and women escape the corruption that is in the world through lust.” {TDG 70.3}
He took our fallen human nature, lived human nature and was victorious over its natural inclination to sin. His sacrifice, His victory and His resurrection would be meaningless to us If He failed to take our fallen nature. The Roman antichrist has successfully removed Jesus from the realm of humanity by giving Him an unfallen, “unhuman” sinless nature and virtually the whole of Christendom says amen to the beast including possibly the larger part of Adventism.
I suspect many of us have not come to terms with the difference between possessing a fallen human nature and sin itself because we have not abandoned the idea that nature is sin, hence our perception of Jesus’ human nature, unfortunately is an erroneous one, similar to the Catholics - in essence some part or the whole of his human nature must be unlike ours.
The problem for us is, the adjectives like selfish, depraved, evil, degenerate etc, used to describe our fallen human nature result in a mental block or objection on our part, that Jesus could not possibly possess a human nature described by such words because we’ve subconsciously identified these descriptive words as SIN. In effect believing NATURE IS SIN.
As you mentioned below, “I looked up these references and have discovered that many of these quotes were applied to specific individuals like Herod, or parents etc.....”
Correct, but these quotes are only descriptions of our sinful human nature. One cannot say that the “…jealous nature…” pertained to Herod alone to the exclusion of the rest of the human race. Or that parents have a peculiar type of human nature which the rest of us who are not parents do not possess. Sister White was merely describing in so many words the characteristics of our fallen human nature and what that nature would naturally lead to if allowed to be expressed as a result of falling to temptation i.e. selfish nature => selfishness, depraved nature => depravity etc. Some folk might manifest one trait more so than others.
5. “…a selfish nature.” -- R. & H., May 16, 1882. {CS 139.2}
6. “…the depraved nature of man.” {PP 688.2}
7. “…evil nature…” {ST, March 30, 1891 par. 2}
8. “…jealous nature…” {YI, October 19, 1899 par. 4}
9. “…our degenerate nature.” {ST, June 2, 1887 par. 2}
10. “…evil traits of the carnal nature”. {HP 312.3}
It is the expression of that fallen human nature in selfishness, depravity, evil, jealousy etc, in the life resulting in sin that is the issue. Something Jesus never allowed as a result of the total surrender of His will to the father.
It appears to me that folk find it more appealing to say that Jesus took our HUMAN NATURE rather than to say that He took our SINFUL HUMAN NATURE or they might prefer to say that He took our HUMANITY rather than to say He took our selfish, depraved, evil, jealous, degenerate FALLEN human nature because folk cannot conceive of such words being associated with Christ but we fail to understand that He never exercised that fallen evil human nature to do evil. Our fallen, sinful human nature is exactly as described by Sister White – it is selfish, jealous, depraved, evil etc, else what do the words “sinful human nature” mean?
There is nothing good about the fallen human nature Jesus took but as long as it is kept crucified daily and controlled daily by the Holy Spirit, it will not manifest evil, depravity etc. “The sinful nature is to be kept under the control of the Spirit of God. …”. …. {GCDB, February 6, 1893 par. 15}
If we are to believe to the contrary that He never took some part of human nature then Jesus never became one of us, was never really human. He came to demonstrate that fallen human nature connected with the Spirit of God can keep the law of God, can “cease from sin”, can “cease to sin”.
The adjectives she uses are merely describing the characteristics of the fallen nature? What that nature would naturally express if left unchecked by the Holy Spirit. But the descriptive “thing” itself, lying dormant in the individual when under the control of the spirit is not sin. Was Jesus selfish? No! He took our sinful selfish human nature without ever expressing selfishness on His part. Similarly, sinful human nature is depraved but did Jesus manifest the depravity of His fallen human nature? Obviously not! Human nature is described as jealous but did Jesus manifest jealousy? No. And so on and so forth.
There is no other type of fallen human nature which can be described by words other than those Sister White used, else it would be a contradiction of the term FALLEN NATURE. Remember His human nature is said to be “perfectly identical” with our own.
We freely admit that He took our sinful fallen nature. But when it comes to describing exactly what the words “sinful, fallen human nature” mean, we seem reluctant to associate it with words as expressed by Sister White. The phrase “sinful human nature” must surely mean something and it is in the context of the above descriptions of our nature that we get an idea of what a sinful, fallen or carnal nature is.
The mere possession of a fallen nature is not itself a sin because Jesus was made with the same fallen nature at His incarnation. It would be ridiculous to say that baby Jesus was in a lost condition for being born with a fallen human nature, amen! We know He was born not only with our fallen nature but with the Spirit of God but the latter is not the consideration. It is this thing called fallen human NATURE and the totality of Jesus’ human nature which we are considering and the mere possession of it by Jesus at birth does not constitute a sin or a lost condition. That His fallen human nature, was under the control of the Spirit of God from His incarnation is a mystery in itself and we do not need to go there. Remember the quote? - “His human nature was created;it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own. …He would redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity.” {CTr 213.4}
Can we see the difference between POSSESSING a fallen human nature and the expression or MANIFESTATION of that nature in the thing it naturally leads to, called SIN – the transgression of the law?
The above descriptions (selfish, depraved, degenerate etc) of our human nature is simply referred to as the fallen nature, the carnal nature or the sinful nature. It is the dying daily to that [selfish] nature, the daily crucifying of that selfish nature, the daily overcoming of that selfish nature, the keeping under of that selfish nature which is all important. Jesus did just that on a daily basis under the most trying circumstances so that there is no excuse for us to sin. This is what it means to walk in the Spirit and not after the flesh. To walk in the Spirit will naturally result in manifesting victory over the fallen nature, to manifest unselfishness, no evil, no jealousy, no depravity while serving “….. Him in human nature which we now have. ….” {OHC 48.4}
“...It is Satan's act to tempt you, but your own act to yield. It is not in the power of all the host of Satan to force the tempted to transgress. There is no excuse for sin.” {Mar 82.3}
Such is the mystery of the incarnation that Divinity can connect sinful, fallen human nature with itself. It was the only way to rescue man – to lift man up and connect him with divine power, nature wise, so that we might escape the corruption that is in the world through lust, by faith in Jesus, the Son of God and the SON OF MAN. James 1:14,15. He is the SON of MAN. He is truly one of us in nature and has left us an example that we should follow in His steps who did no sin neither was guile found in His mouth.
You will agree that we need to be careful because we can turn from righteousness to wickedness in a flash if this fallen nature is not under the control of God’s Spirit moment by moment on a daily basis. Ezekiel3:20 Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
The fallen nature must be surrendered to God every moment, every day. As mentioned in the letter I sent you, Christ had only two natures the human and the Divine which were mysteriously blended. They were both “complete” natures in themselves and she says both retained their special properties. I could not find the type of fallen human nature you suggested which He did not blend with His sinless Divine nature – see below. “We want to comprehend so far as possible the truly human nature of our Lord. The divine and human were linked in Christ, and both were complete.” {3SM 135.3}
"Two Natures Blended in Christ.--Through being partakers of the divine nature we may stand pure and holy and undefiled. The Godhead was not made human, and the human was not deified by the blending together of the two natures. Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering.--Manuscript 94, 1893. {3SM 131.1}
Note, Christ did not possess the same fallen disloyalty we possess, in other words the fallen disloyalty we possess is as a result of our having sinned which He did not do and hence as quoted earlier while “He had all the strength of PASSION of humanity, never did He yield to temptation to do one single act which was not pure and elevating and ennobling.”
While He accepted the great law of heredity thereby possessing all the passion of fallen humanity, He never once yielded to temptation and sin like we have and hence did not possess the same fallen DISLOYALTY and the cultivated passions which we possess as a result of our having transgressed God’s law.
Finally, I found the latter part of this comment of yours somewhat strange in the light of what has already been shared. The implications are obvious.
“Even though Jesus had a sinful and fallen human physical and mental nature, He did not have our fallen spiritual nature.”
I believe we need to stay with inspired definitions regarding the word NATURE as outlined in my previous letter. Human nature is fallen human nature. Christ did not pick and choose which parts of fallen human nature He was to take. Christ was a real man. A MAN with a fallen human nature. Is this something difficult to understand? I do not think so. I am sorry to go over this repeatedly but it may not be as plain to others as I think it ought to be.
Inspiration says “He was human, as you are.” That He was “…a real man”, “…a true human being” Am I to interpret these words as saying that He was a sinner just like you and I? Obviously not but the words must mean something. Am I to understand that He did not possess a type of human nature which I possess? I do not think so. He was either a real man, a true human being with a fallen human nature identical to mine or He wasn’t. She also says: “It was not a make-believe humanity that Christ took upon Himself.” So Christ took something upon Himself that was not make-believe, it was a fallen humanity that was really human just as you are. And it is also stated that “His human nature was created;..”, and that “……It was human, identical with our own. …” He is, therefore, human “as you are” as far as His human NATURE is concerned. Notice she says that His human nature was identical with our own. She not only says it was identical with our own but that it was “….PERFECTLY IDENTICAL with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. . . .”
Now the suggestion that there is some kind of human NATURE which He did not take flies in the face of the above testimonies. If there is a type of fallen human NATURE He did not possess then obviously, He was never fully man and His NATURE cannot be described as perfectly identical with ours. It would be contrary to the testimonies because she stated that His NATURE was perfectly identical with ours. The only qualification she made to nature was in reference to sin, “….PERFECTLY IDENTICAL with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. . . .” The phrase “without the taint of sin” refers to Him never tainting that human nature of His with sin on His part.
We understand that His nature was “perfectly identical with our own..”. Therefore, to know what type of human nature He took it would only be logical to ascertain the sort of nature we possess. What sort of nature have we inherited? The fallen nature of Adam. Hence everything about the human nature Jesus took must be fallen.
Why is the human nature of Adam described as fallen, sinful, carnal? Because He sinned and through His sin, tainted the original unfallen human nature he was created with. So a human nature tainted by Adam’s sin has been bequeathed to you and I through the great law of heredity. It is simply called a sinful nature. You and I had no part to play in the tainting of this thing (NATURE) we inherited from Adam. The original tainting with sin was Adam’s fault. It was his transgression that tainted human nature. God does not condemn us for possessing it because nowhere in inspiration does He condemn Jesus for possessing the identical human nature He inherited from Adam. He is “the son of Adam”.
That we have demonstrated the ease with which this inherited human nature lends itself to sin is clear from the scriptures (Rom 3:23) and from our own experience. We, ourselves have tainted that fallen human nature with our own sin, something Jesus never did, As a son of Adam, He obeyed the great law of heredity and inherited a fallen human nature just like you and I. The difference is, Jesus, unlike us, never tainted His fallen human nature by transgressing the law Himself.
Therefore, unlike us, He never sinned while possessing a fallen human nature. I would like to think this is what you meant by “…..He did not have our fallen spiritual nature.”but it would be better expressed without the word NATURE in the sentence else you will be misunderstood as presenting an erroneous view of His human NATURE. You will agree that Jesus did not take make-believe human nature. He did not take only one half or one third of our human nature, He was fully man just as you are.
As mentioned earlier baby Jesus was not in a lost condition while possessing a fallen human nature identical with our own, amen?
If sin is nature for which one is condemned and lost, then it goes to follow that Jesus could not possibly have any part of our nature, not even a small portion of it including the fallen physical body as outlined in my previous letter. You see the problems we start getting into when we redefine sin as nature?
The “Sin is NATURE” folk cannot accept Jesus partaking of our fallen nature. As outlined in the previous letter, SN Haskell and the brethren who went to Indiana had the same sentiments as I’ve highlighted above in yellow. SN Haskell wrote:
“When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned.” (Letter, #2, to Ellen G. White, dated at Battle Creek, Michigan, September 25, 1900).
Sister White stated that the Indiana folk were leading people astray by their teachings.
If being “born in fallen humanity” means “Christ sinned” because Sin is nature, then obviously He could not have been born with a fallen nature. Can you see the difficulty one would have with the line “…..He did not have our fallen spiritual nature.”? Unless you precisely define what is meant by a “fallen spiritual nature.” folk will be confused and will naturally align you with the SIN is NATURE camp despite your admission that “…Jesus had a sinful and fallen human physical and mental nature,….” or that Sin is the transgression of the law.
If Jesus did not possess a type of human nature which we possess, then we are really unknowingly in the camp of Antichrist. The SOP clearly defines what constitutes [fallen] Human nature and I believe we need to stay with those definitions else we will venture into areas like “….our fallen spiritual nature.” and confuse NATURE. There are 140 hits on the EGW CD on “spiritual nature” and none on “..our fallen spiritual nature”
I tried to comprehend what you were trying to say and the closest I could get is the following:
“The human nature of Christ was like unto ours. And suffering was really more keenly felt by Him, for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin.. . . . {CTr 268.6}.
There is no other type of human nature but fallen human nature which was blended with His divine nature. We are told that Christ has “two natures”, the Divine and the human and that these natures were “mysteriously blended”, that the two natures were complete in themselves and each retained its “essential properties”.
“We want to comprehend so far as possible the truly human nature of our Lord. The divine and human were linked in Christ, and both were complete.” {3SM 135.3}
Both were complete, hence the human nature of Christ was a complete one and must retain His identity as a human. Man’s identity is not only in the physical appearance but also in the Spirit of man – who He or she is. The spirit is something intangible in contrast the to the tangible aspect of man’s nature, his physical body.
The nature of man, we are told, is threefold and encompasses the physical, mental (or intellectual) and moral properties. The latter two are the non-tangible aspects of man’s nature – his spirit, his identity. Is the latter what you claim Jesus did not take? If that is the case then you’ve still got this hang up that nature is sin. The sinful fallen human nature in its totality includes both the sinful fallen physical body (his outward physical appearance) and the sinful fallen identity of man, his spirit ( inward identity, who the man or woman is, the person that you are.) Christ’s human nature was “complete”.
If one removes the inward spirit of man from His nature, then His humanity is incomplete and cannot be said to be perfectly identical with ours. Furthermore, temptation and the victory over it or the succumbing to it and sin must be confronted by His fallen HUMAN NATURE, the spirit of man and as noted in the previous email includes his human mind with its properties of conscience, reason and intellect and not by His DIVINE nature.
The fallen human nature He took met every temptation and was victorious – hence His Spiritual nature is a victorious fallen human nature because that is the only type of nature which can be tempted or can respond to temptation. The combination of His fallen human nature and the Spirit of God which is what He was incarnated with is the new nature which all must possess in order to be victorious Christians, Amen? One cannot suddenly remove His fallen human nature making it non-existent and at the same time say He took our fallen nature.
Note she says the Human nature of Christ “was like unto ours” – ie sinful, fallen nature, but then she mentions that “His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin.” In other words He possessed our fallen nature which He never tainted with sin at all and this is what she refers to as His Spiritual nature. Of the Divine nature and the fallen human nature, the latter is the only one which can be tainted by sin.
One cannot speak of a Divine nature free from every taint of sin because it is impossible to taint such a nature with sin. Hence the fallen human nature under the control of the Spirit is a different nature from the fallen one abiding alone as in the natural man. It is a nature in which Christ is dwelling in the heart of man by faith and we are strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man. You will agree that the only thing that needs strengthening is a weak fallen human nature which has to face temptation on a daily basis. Note the SOP:
“In their fallen nature people can do the very things God expects them to do through the help provided for them. They can walk and work and live by faith in the Son of God. God is not pleased with those who are satisfied with a mere animal life. He has formed human beings after the divine similitude. He designs that they shall possess the character of God by obeying His law, the expression of His divine character. The Lord has given them mind, intellect, and affections. These gifts are entrusted to them to be exercised and improved. God has given them a conscience that must be carefully cherished and appreciated. He has given them knowledge and virtue. These entrusted capabilities are to hold the supremacy that God has assigned to them. {CTr 53.4}
Some folk seem to think that the fallen human nature disappears at conversion but this is not the case. Did Jesus’ sinful human nature somehow disappear during His life on earth? If it did, then what does this mean: “He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.” {MM 181.3}
Summary of man’s HUMAN nature:
1. ORIGINAL MAN (ADAM) = despite SINLESS NATURE => SIN
2. FALLEN ADAM = FALLEN HUMAN NATURE => SIN
3. ADAM’S CHILDREN = FALLEN HUMAN NATURE => SIN
4. JESUS = FALLEN NATURE + HOLY SPIRIT => NO SIN.
5. MAN = FALLEN NATURE + HOLY SPIRIT => NO SIN.
“Our fallen nature must be purified, ennobled, consecrated by obedience to the truth…..” {5T 235.3}
The sinful nature is to be kept under the control of the Spirit of God. The transforming grace of Christ will bring the will into harmony with the will of Christ. …. {GCDB, February 6, 1893 par. 15}
The fallen nature is broken up by the Spirit and this same man is now walking in the Spirit with a “new nature” different from that of the natural man but beware as quoted from Ezekiel 3, this same man can manifest the worst of his fallen human nature at any time if not under the control of the Holy Spirit. It is still there and the Spirit keeps it under, crucifies it from manifesting itself, controls it etc. etc.
The following quotes demonstrate how human Jesus was. Sister White expressed it best in point 2 below:
1. “Jesus speaks to us, "Learn of Me"; "Be like Me." He was human, as you are.” {14MR 334.2}
2. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. . . . {CTr 208.6}
Sorry for the repetition but His nature was perfectly identical with our own nature. What sort of nature do we possess? A sinful nature. Why is it called sinful? Because it was tainted by Adam’s sin. Now, while possessing such a tainted sinful nature it is said that this sinful nature He took was “without the taint of sin..”Are we to understand that this means He took Adam’s sinless untainted nature before the fall? Obviously not, else it could not be labeledas a SINFUL NATURE nor can it be labeled as “PERFECTLY IDENTICAL WITH OUR OWN NATURE”. It obviously means He did not taint it with sin on His part thereby demonstrating the power of God in delivering from sin despite the possession of a sinful, fallen nature. It is an indictment on Adam, that Adam with the advantages of a sinless nature and the environment of Eden need not have sinned.
"Christ, the Redeemer of the world, was not situated where the influences surrounding him were the best calculated to preserve a life of purity and untainted morals, yet he was not contaminated. He was not free from temptation. Satan was earnest and persevering in his efforts to deceive and overcome the Son of God by his devices. Christ was the only one who walked the earth upon whom there rested no taint of sin. He was pure, spotless, and undefiled. That there should be One without the defilement of sin upon the earth, greatly disturbed the author of sin, and he left no means untried to overcome Christ with his wily, deceptive power. But our Saviour relied upon his Heavenly Father for wisdom and strength to resist and overcome the tempter. The Spirit of his Heavenly Father animated and regulated his life. He was sinless. Virtue and purity characterized his life. {YI, February 1, 1873 par. 2}
Can we now understand the significance of the incarnation? That Divinity so connected with sinful humanity, lifted fallen humanity up from the mire of sin and death, that sinful fallen humanity may so connect with divinity on a daily basis and be victorious and so attain to the resurrection of life that is in Christ Jesus.
3. “It was not a make-believe humanity that Christ took upon Himself. He took human nature and lived human nature. ….” {5BC 1124.1}.
4. “His human nature was created; ……It was human, identical with our own. …He would redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity.” {CTr 213.4}
5. “He was made like unto his brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical.” {RH, February 10, 1885 par. 7}
6. “Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with his own sinless nature, …. …” {RH, July 17, 1900 par. 8}
7. "A human body and a human mind were His." {CTr 213.5}
8. Christ was a real man; He gave proof of His humility in becoming a man. ….”. {1SM 244.1}
9. “Bear in mind that Christ's overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being.. ….” {3SM 139.4}
10. “Christ had two natures, the nature of a man and the nature of God. In him divinity and humanity were combined. ……He exhibited a perfect humanity, combined with deity; and by preserving each nature distinct, he has given to the world a representation of the character of God and the character of a perfect man. He shows us what God is, and what man may become--godlike in character.” {GCB, October 1, 1899 par. 20}
11. “Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. His finite nature was pure and spotless, but the divine nature that led Him to say to Philip, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" also, was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties.” {16MR 182.1}
I believe the picture below (graphic could not be uploaded) summarizes the debate on the difference between NATURE & SIN when defining what SIN is.
1. Lucifer, Eve and Adam were created with perfect sinless natures.
2. They all did something called SIN, they transgressed the law of God as depicted by the tablets of stone in the picture.
3. Sin never existed in their natures prior to their transgression.
4. SIN, therefore, in its definition has nothing whatsoever to do with angelic or human NATURE.
5. God gave a perfect and complete definition of SIN on two tablets of stone. It is as “broad and as tall as eternity”.
6. Whether one possesses a SINLESS nature or a SINFUL nature is IRELEVANT to the definition of SIN – 1John 3:4
7. Therefore, the [sinful] NATURE is not sin as SIN is 1John 3:4
8. Hence even baby Jesus could partake of our SINFUL, FALLEN humanity and not be classified a SINNER – as SN Haskell & Co and Ellen White believed.
The sinless NATURED angels in heaven and the sinless NATURED beings of the unfallen worlds are still governed by a law which states that the wages of the transgression of that law (sin) is death. Has nothing to do with their NATURE.
If you are still confused after all that, then my sincere apologies for the weak vessel that I am in not being able to explain things as well. Lets both get on our knees and supplicate His throne of grace that we may both know the truth about this thing lest we fall into the camp of Antichrist through cunningly devised fables.
Our regards to ..... and the girls and may the Grace and Peace of God be with you and your family.
Sincerely