Progressive SDA and Christology

[Pythons]

Originally Posted by Restin

Pythons...I agree with what you are saying about John 14:30.

​

I did go back and read the discussion "Could Christ have Sinned?" which was started about a year ago. At the point where it seemed the discussion was going in circles, I did not continue.

To clarify...I believe that, Christ had no 'concupiscence' to or toward sin.

So could I count that as a 'no' vote, Christ could not have lost his Salvation and been cast into hell by "God" simply because it would have been impossible for Christ to sin because Christ is "God", therefore Christ was / is "impeccable".

I will ask you to forgive me, I thought you believed that Jesus could have sinned thus activating Ellen White's hypothetical of Jesus being awakened by God at the end of time and subsequently cast into hell.

 

[Restin]

So could I count that as a 'no' vote, Christ could not have lost his Salvation and been cast into hell by "God" simply because it would have been impossible for Christ to sin because Christ is "God", therefore Christ was / is "impeccable".

When human language tries to put the mystery of Godliness in to words...they never tell the entire picture...I rest with this verse on the matter...

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. KJV

I will ask you to forgive me, I thought you believed that Jesus could have sinned thus activating Ellen White's hypothetical of Jesus being awakened by God at the end of time and subsequently cast into hell.

RE: EGW...There was a time in my younger years, when I worshiped EGW. Now, I am given to respect the fact that God gave her a work to do and because she is God's servant - not mine, how can I judge her inadequacies...?

Me forgive you? According as God has forgiven myself, may His forgiveness extend to you as well, because You too, are God's servant, how can I judge any inadequacy you may have? God knows what they are - not I.

 

[Pythons]

When human language tries to put the mystery of Godliness in to words...they never tell the entire picture...I rest with this verse on the matter...


RE: EGW...There was a time in my younger years, when I worshiped EGW. Now, I am given to respect the fact that God gave her a work to do and because she is God's servant - not mine, how can I judge her inadequacies...?

Me forgive you? According as God has forgiven myself, may His forgiveness extend to you as well, because You too, are God's servant, how can I judge any inadequacy you may have? God knows what they are - not I.

We both agree that human understanding this side of heaven will never understand fully what God is - I think we both agree on that, however we certainly can say what God is not & hypothetically "God" throwing Jesus into hell after he looses his salvation is a BIG NOT. The only way for Ellen's hypothetical to activate is mutation of God. I maintain that is a far greater mystery then anything I've been taught where I'm from.

None-the-less you are a credit to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Class act Restin. Pray for me.

 

[Avonia]

Jon, when you asked me to answer the "other one" I assume you mean this one.

What does narrows mean? I think I have some idea, but it would be nice if you clarified.

Not as systemic. More reduced. The ever-expanding circles of systemic inquiry vs. reduction and consolidation into arrangeable, knowable, parts.

Systems thinkers are looking at larger and larger patterns to explain what's going on - holism. Reductionists are looking to organize their understanding of epiphenomena to understand what's going on.

In your field, you can think of upward or downward causation.

Both are valuable. We tend to teach our children more about reduction than systemic thinking.

 

[JediMobius]

I had some rather serious discussions in the Traditional area and was in the negative that Jesus was "malleable". I realize that there are many things progressives and trad's are similar in belief on and would like to know the general view of Progressives on this matter.

"Malleable" means "peccable" which carries the theological default of Christ yearning within Himself to sleep with other peoples wives or anything else considered to be a sin of thought, such as "Thou shall not covet", etc.

A person who believes that Jesus was "impeccable" ( such as myself ) holds that Jesus was indeed tempted by the Devil but at no point was Jesus ever tempted within Himself to do a thing, i.e. Jesus was not tempted.

It would be like me asking you to do something, that was to you, crude and gross --- it could be said that I tempted you or you were tempted by pythons but you were not, even for a split second, tempted to do what I tempted you to do. This is how a person who holds God is not "Malleable" views it.

I already know the answer from the Trad side so what say you? I'm not trying to start a massive debate I would just like to know.

Temptation only works if one is actually tempted to sin, that is, to have the urge to go against God's command in some capacity. However, to merely be tempted is not to actually transgress. When Satan tempted Christ it was with offers Jesus was likely to accept, things that were on some level enticing. For example, I would never be tempted to stick my hand into a pit of venomous snakes. Though someone might try to get me to do that, it wouldn't be temptation because I would for no reason actually want or desire to do such a thing.

I believe Christ is fully God and was fully man.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
​

How could Christ have taken on the likeness of sinful flesh without actually being tempted? But temptation is not in itself sin, so to be tempted is not to be malleable; only to give in to temptation, which Christ of course did not do. All flesh is corruptible, but Christ's Spirit is incorruptible, and through the power of that Spirit His flesh was made incorruptible by sin.

In order to do what the law couldn't, Christ had to become fully human, experiencing what we experience, but without sin. He experienced temptation, the desire of corruptible flesh, but without sinning for even the smallest moment. (So He wouldn't have been tempted to commit adultery, because that would require the prior sin of lusting after the woman in His heart.)

 

[JonMiller]

Jon, when you asked me to answer the "other one" I assume you mean this one.

No, I meant how would your perceptions change if the flood really happened?

Or even if Job really happened?

JM

 

[Pythons]

Tortoise,

I covered that earlier in the thread and frankly you illustrated it very well at the initial part of your post.

Temptation only works if one is actually tempted to sin, that is, to have the urge to go against God's command in some capacity.

Yes, exactly... "Every man IS tempted when he is drawn away by HIS OWN lust and enticed." James 1,13 That's why I gave the illustration about the 400 lb homosexual who asks a straight guy with a family to sleep with him. The fat man "tempted" the straight guy but the "straight guy" was not tempted because that particular sin was not a sin he "lusted" for. Which "sin" or "sins" did Jesus lust for tortoise?

The only way you can lust for sin is if you are saturated with it.

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Paul is preaching to fellow humans who were made exactly like him. Paul tells these Christians to control their sin instead of "it" controlling them. Jesus was made in all ways like us APART from sin. A Christ who resisted the temptation to sleep with a woman, steal, etc was not Christ of Scripture, another Christ perhaps but not the one the Bible tells us "would" save us and knew He would save us prior to the creation of the world.

Jesus was no doubt assailed by temptations both situational and "of / by" the Devil. At "NO POINT" did Christ have to resist a temptation because He did not want to sleep with another persons wife, He did not want to steal, or to gossip about people, "covet" ( a sin of thought ) or any other sin. The Scripture is frank that every man is tempted when HE is drawn away by his OWN lust - that same Scripture details that the actual desire that causes the actual temptation IS SIN in it's baby state.

If I say that it's not a sin that I'm tempted to look at a woman who is attractive to me, I need Jesus more then ever. I've never been attracted at looking at obese girls but know guys who are! I'm not tempted within myself at obese girls because that's not part of "my lust" while it most certainly is for the guy who likes em Bovine. Now take this simple example and run some tests on Jesus, you should be able to tell me what it was that He lusted for in order for Him to be tempted. Sexual type sins? Business related sins? What?

The end result of a mutation able Christ is the hypothetical situation Ellen White places Christ in "if" He sinned ( God throws Jesus into hell ). The oddity is, according to Adventist theology, Christ did sin because He had to resist His own temptations, just like we do.

What it seems like to me is that sin has been re-defined into something that only becomes sin when it's fully acted out. I.e. I'm attracted to sleep with my neighbors wife and she asks me to, I lust for her already so I have one of two selections to make.

A) Resist "my" temptation, urge or pulling to sleep with her thereby preventing the sin already inside me from reigning or perfecting itself so that it's full grown.

Or,

B) Go with it, sleep with the woman.

Either A or B requires a Savior and as as they say in Africa, a lion cub is still a lion.

 

[JediMobius]

I ended up reading each paragraph and addressing each independently. So hopefully, anything I wrote that further down is also what you wrote can be read as clarification, and careful step-wise reasoning. Also, for the sake of clarification, I try not to ask rhetorical questions. If I've answered my own questions, it should be assumed they're still open for other possibilities.

Tortoise,

I covered that earlier in the thread and frankly you illustrated it very well at the initial part of your post.

Frankly, I didn't get into the thread. I decided to address only the first post. But, it seems like you've re-established what was covered here anyway.

Yes, exactly... "Every man IS tempted when he is drawn away by HIS OWN lust and enticed." James 1,13 That's why I gave the illustration about the 400 lb homosexual who asks a straight guy with a family to sleep with him. The fat man "tempted" the straight guy but the "straight guy" was not tempted because that particular sin was not a sin he "lusted" for. Which "sin" or "sins" did Jesus lust for tortoise?

I was thinking about a similar scenario, coincidentally, when formulating my first reply. Here's the thing: while I wouldn't be tempted to actually engage in homosexuality, I would be tempted by my own lustful desires for the sexual acts involved, and my mind would shift the same base desires from a homosexual context to a heterosexual one. The temptation in that case isn't into homosexual sin, because that's not one of my desires. So it can't be said that a homosexual guy could tempt me to sleep with him, but being tempted by the pleasure sex would bring, I might sin by lusting after a woman.

We have to be careful with the context of James 1:13-14. (Not that you've taken it out of context.) The primary purpose of the passage is as an argument refuting the idea that anyone is tempted by God into sin. I don't think these verses could be applied to the gospels to suggest that Jesus was not really tempted by Satan in the desert. The key to understanding temptation is understanding desire, I think. Desire is not good or bad in and of itself. (The desire to love and be loved, for happiness, knowledge, or peace can each manifest in a Godly or ungodly way.) Temptation is the attempt of evil/Satan to pull neutral desires away from a Godly direction to a self-serving, ungodly direction.

Jesus was indeed tempted to act on his desires by Satan, but He was not tempted to sin.

Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Mat 4:2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.
Mat 4:3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"
​

Why is this temptation? Jesus's weak flesh was hungry, so Satan played on the natural desire for nourishment to tempt Jesus to use His Divine power to make food for Himself. What I see here is the most basic reality of battling against sin: serving God vs. serving self or another 'god'. The temptation within Christ was of the flesh, but not of sin. Had Christ given in to the flesh (which of course would never have happened) sin would be the result, the sin of disobeying the Spirit of God.

Mat 4:5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.'"
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
Mat 4:9 And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"
​

The other temptations are similar. The second temptation is an appeal to Jesus's loving trust in the Father. If Satan had merely said "put God to the test...", Jesus would not have been tempted. The third temptation is to have all the kingdoms of the world, which Christ clearly wanted for the sake of ruling all the people of the earth as a loving and just creator. At this point, Satan must have been running out of ideas, because clearly, Christ will rule at the right hand of the Father, with all glory, all the nations of the earth, but in God's time not Satan's. Had Satan simply told Jesus to worship him, Jesus would not have been tempted.

To be certain, Satan's attempts to corrupt the incorruptible were doomed to fail from the start, but that doesn't mean Christ wasn't literally and actually tempted. Without very real temptation, where's the struggle that proves Christ was truly made flesh? Salvation is rooted in the fact that Christ overcame death, and part of that is overcoming temptation. If Christ was not actually tempted, what was there to overcome? What was the test?

Heb 4:15 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.
​

The only way you can lust for sin is if you are saturated with it.

I won't deny the truth of that statement. However, James 1:14 is speaking specifically of how every man is tempted. Jesus was also a man, and was also tempted, but instead of sinful desire (lust) the only desires Jesus had for Satan to draw into temptation were Godly desires. I mean, the way I see it, your point of view is basically correct, but is not careful enough to maintain what it means that our savior came very much in the flesh as much as in spirit.

Paul is preaching to fellow humans who were made exactly like him. Paul tells these Christians to control their sin instead of "it" controlling them. Jesus was made in all ways like us APART from sin. A Christ who resisted the temptation to sleep with a woman, steal, etc was not Christ of Scripture, another Christ perhaps but not the one the Bible tells us "would" save us and knew He would save us prior to the creation of the world.

Why would a Christ who was tempted have to be tempted to sleep with a woman? That's a temptation that comes after sin. When thinking of the way Christ would be tempted, we have to think of a man without original sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned before eating the forbidden fruit (please don't call it an apple ) yet they were very literally tempted. Their desire was not yet saturated in sin, yet their desires were what Satan manipulated when he tempted them. They weren't tempted by sin but to sin by perfectly acceptable desires. Eve desired to be like God - even God desires that we be like Him, and that is the desire Satan exploited. Adam desired to be acceptable to his wife, and what's wrong with that? Here, Satan exploited a loving, wholesome desire to get Adam to sin against God. They weren't tempted by sin, Satan had to be more clever than to just say 'disobey God, what's the worst that could happen?' which is the only sin they committed by eating the fruit. It's just that God commanded them not to. It's like this for Christ, except that Christ never disobeyed His Father.

Jesus was no doubt assailed by temptations both situational and "of / by" the Devil. At "NO POINT" did Christ have to resist a temptation because He did not want to sleep with another persons wife, He did not want to steal, or to gossip about people, "covet" ( a sin of thought ) or any other sin. The Scripture is frank that every man is tempted when HE is drawn away by his OWN lust - that same Scripture details that the actual desire that causes the actual temptation IS SIN in its baby state.

Are you familiar with a catalyst? Just because one thing leads to another does not mean the first is the same as the next, or that the result has grown from the cause. If temptation is sin, Jesus was not tempted, pure and simple. For us, temptation leads to sin because of our nature, not because of the nature of temptation. Every verse of the bible is worded very carefully, and that's what we should expect of words inspired by the Spirit. James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted with evil, not simply that God cannot be tempted. So we know from this that temptation is not synonymous with evil, else 'with evil' would not need to be specified of temptation.

Temptation can't merely be 'baby sin' because sin is not the only result of temptation. Another definition for the Greek word is 'test' and that's all temptation really is, testing. Just like gold is tested, or tempered, by fire, so we are tempted. Temptation shows what we're made of, whether of flesh or of spirit, of straw or gold built on the foundation of Christ.

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
​

Temptation throughout scripture has a dichotomy. In every instance that temptation leads to sin, it is the flesh that led into that temptation.

Mat 26:41 "Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
​

But Jesus was led by the Spirit into temptation, and the Spirit would not lead into sin, so it cannot be said temptation is sin in and of itself. The result of temptation in this case is not sin, it is proof of God's Glory. And when we are tempted, if we endure, temptation has not led to sin but to greater faith. Take the martyrs, when they were brought before their executioners and given the last chance to renounce the God of their salvation, they surely must have been tempted to do so by their desire to have life. But were they tempted by their own sin in this case? This temptation instead of causing sin proved their faith, because by faith they already had life and so overcame the temptation to sin against God.

If I say that it's not a sin that I'm tempted to look at a woman who is attractive to me, I need Jesus more than ever. I've never been attracted at looking at obese girls but know guys who are! I'm not tempted within myself at obese girls because that's not part of "my lust" while it most certainly is for the guy who likes em Bovine. Now take this simple example and run some tests on Jesus, you should be able to tell me what it was that He lusted for in order for Him to be tempted. Sexual type sins? Business related sins? What?

How is the desire to appreciate the beauty of God's creation a sin, or the desire for a life-partner? It is not a sin to want to look at an attractive woman. The only sin I, as a man, would be in danger of committing is lust. If I had a girlfriend, would it be sinful to look (and only look) at her? Taking it a step further, if I had a wife, would it be a sin to behold her beauty, or even to lust after my own wife? I don't see how. Because I know God has a wife intended for me, and because every other woman is intended for someone else or for God, I would choose not to look at attractive women unless I can see them as sisters in Christ. I would choose not to be tempted because I know how easily I fall into sin. It is wise to avoid temptation, it is imperative to avoid sin. By avoiding temptation I avoid sin; but if I am tempted I have the power of Christ within me to keep from sinning. If temptation and sin are basically the same, I don't see how it's possible for flesh to withstand temptation.

1Co 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
​

We cannot bear sin, that's why we need salvation through Christ. But we can bear temptation. Before I was born again (John 3:3) I was tempted by sin because I had already sinned once before and then continued in sin, perpetuating temptation. After I was born again, I was given a clean slate:

2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
​

Being drawn to repentance, temptation is not like James 1:14 for any sin I have repented of (being made new again if I have stumbled). I am not saturated with the sins of my past because I have been made clean by Christ's blood. (1Jn 1:7) I have not been tempted to sleep with my neighbor's wives since I have been made new. I've been tempted to lust after them in my heart, and repented. I am tempted by pornography every time it comes up in an ad on the internet (stupid Chrome without ad-block), but I don't know the last time I actually sinned from being tempted because since the Lord has freed me of that sinful addiction, I just look away now and click myself away from such things.

The temptations Jesus faced were limited to those not resultant of saturation in sin. Jesus was tempted in the garden the night before He was crucified to avoid the suffering and death He knew was coming, even asking God to take away the cup if possible. On the cross, he suffered the temptation to hate God asking "why have you forsaken me?", but even in such anguish, Christ did not sin. But we can't say He wasn't tempted to sin, only that the Spirit prevailed over the flesh every time.

Heb 2:18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
​

How could Jesus have suffered temptation, and be able to aid is through our own temptation if He himself was not tempted the same way we are? Indeed, once the saturation of sins we've committed is taken out of the equation, the nature of temptation in our flesh is the same weakness Christ endured in His flesh which He conquered.

 

[JediMobius]

The end result of a mutation able Christ is the hypothetical situation Ellen White places Christ in "if" He sinned ( God throws Jesus into hell ). The oddity is, according to Adventist theology, Christ did sin because He had to resist His own temptations, just like we do.

But I'm not saying anything like that. All I'm saying is that the way you've been putting it, Christ was superhuman to the point that temptation was not a reality for Him, which would mean it was so easy to resist one might think He wasn't even on earth in the flesh. What the Adventist theology seems to do is assume that God created man/flesh to be sinful, which God did not do. The sinful nature of man is inherited. Christ did have to resist his own temptations, just like we do, but the flaw in the Adventist theology (according to what you say) is that this must have led to sin. As I've shown above, I don't believe this is "rightly dividing the word" on the topic of temptation. The two positions here are at opposite ends of the spectrum of Christ's nature. What I understand from scripture is a balance between the two.

What it seems like to me is that sin has been re-defined into something that only becomes sin when it's fully acted out. I.e. I'm attracted to sleep with my neighbors wife and she asks me to, I lust for her already so I have one of two selections to make.

A) Resist "my" temptation, urge or pulling to sleep with her thereby preventing the sin already inside me from reigning or perfecting itself so that it's full grown.

Or,

B) Go with it, sleep with the woman.

Either A or B requires a Savior and as as they say in Africa, a lion cub is still a lion.

This example is a sin that's stacked on top of another sin. One who is tempted to sleep with his neighbor's wife has already sinned by lusting after her in his heart. What I mean is if he had not lusted after his neighbor's wife in his heart in the first place, he would not actually be tempted to sleep with her. Say I never lusted after my neighbor's wife, though I was tempted to by her beauty and my own sinful nature. Then, say, she propositioned me. If I still have resisted the temptation to lust after her in my heart, though the temptation is stronger at this point, I would not be tempted to sleep with her. Though I may be tempted to sleep with someone now that the opportunity has been presented, I haven't sinned yet. If, however, I were to accept the proposition, I would be sinning multiple times over. Accepting the opportunity to sleep with my neighbor's wife would be first lusting after her in my heart and in that context I would be tempted by sin to continue further in my lust.

 

[Joe67]

Of course I do. And, of course I don't.

Said pointing misses much of what is interesting, because it narrows. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily better to not point than to point.

God's Law Is. There is no way to break it. It is not up for debate or interpretation. It exists. The potential is coming into relationship with it.

Avonia,

I referred to your testimony ( Post# 25 ) in the last paragraph, concerning, "God's Law is..." The reference was on the thread "Are we better than a Buddhist?"

In the law as spoken at Mt. Sinai there is not an "if." The threatened curse is in the third restraint and the promised blessing is in the honoring of parents. The Sabbath principle has a "shall" and a "shall not" quality.

Your witness that "God's law is not up for debate or interpretation" takes the glory away from man and gives all the glory to God. God desires for us to think about the law continually and to meditate upon it and share with each other the thoughts that he gives us as he brings all our thoughts into the captivity to the obedience of Christ, obedience unto the death of the cross.

Actually the words spoken at Mt. Sinai are a prophecy concerning what God is doing and will do through his children. It became a law of condemnation to them when they asked for Moses to rule over them. They not only received Moses as a schoolmaster, but Aaron and an priestcraft system that wore them down into the dirt, until finally the asked for a king. From the mouth of the Lord, the words are a promise of the new heaven and the new earth, which he has begun to fulfill in the birth and death and resurrection of Jesus. In Jesus we see the words true fulfillment. Now Jesus writes in our hearts and minds the shadow/image of his fulfillment. Moses, Aaron and Joshua could not bring us into the promised rest/Sabbath.

Jesus' fulfillment reconciles us to God and gives us peace with God as our Father. Jesus' writing in our hearts and minds the shadowy image of his fulfillment sets us apart as ministers of the new covenant revelation of God, the ministry of reconciliation.

May we not fall back under the law as an obligation and duty and thereby come back under the condemnation of the devil. May the words spoken to us at Mt. Sinai be a prophecy to us, a promise concerning the hope that is set before us in the power of the resurrection of Jesus, our Lord.

Then the "shall not" will be fully realized as the "IS." Now we have the down payment of the "IS" of our God, the earnest of our inheritance in Christ, the seal of faith toward the Son of God. Then at his appearing we will experience the full reality of the promise of God. Our creature quality will be brought into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Then we will serve in the kingdom of Christ without the flesh continually warring against the grace. The full Sabbath rest apart from our sinful humanity. Thank God in Jesus Christ for the inner continual Sabbath rest he gives us now in our hearts and minds, preparing us to enter into the completed rest in the flesh and by sight. Now we hope for that which we do not see.

Joe

 

[Avonia]

Very interesting thoughts Joe.

Jesus' writing in our hearts and minds the shadowy image of his fulfillment sets us apart as ministers of the new covenant revelation of God, the ministry of reconciliation.

I like the way you said this.

 

[Pythons]

I was thinking about a similar scenario, coincidentally, when formulating my first reply. Here's the thing: while I wouldn't be tempted to actually engage in homosexuality, I would be tempted by my own lustful desires for the sexual acts involved, and my mind would shift the same base desires from a homosexual context to a heterosexual one. The temptation in that case isn't into homosexual sin, because that's not one of my desires. So it can't be said that a homosexual guy could tempt me to sleep with him, but being tempted by the pleasure sex would bring, I might sin by lusting after a woman.

For what sexual acts? If you wouldn't be tempted to engage in a homosexual scenario you would not be tempted or find yourself in a position of having to resist the pull you had toward engagement in said activity. Now, switch the scenario to that of a woman you were very attracted to and experience what it is to "resist temptation" OR, complete AKA perfect "your own" sin. You can't perfect something that does not exist therefore, an un-conceived sin is sin expressing an interest to conceive itself in "your actions" thereby perfecting "it".

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof

Tortoise, I'm not saying you "might", I'm telling you that you "would". That one person's specific sins do not exactly mirror another person is irrelevant to the fact that all of us require being saved by the One who had no ( as in zero ) sin. Romans 6,12 is telling us that sin is in us and we must fight it so it does not "reign" by us perfecting the sin by our actions. A baby Lion in it's mother's womb is still a lion is it not?

We have to be careful with the context of James 1:13-14. (Not that you've taken it out of context.) The primary purpose of the passage is as an argument refuting the idea that anyone is tempted by God into sin. I don't think these verses could be applied to the gospels to suggest that Jesus was not really tempted by Satan in the desert. The key to understanding temptation is understanding desire, I think. Desire is not good or bad in and of itself. (The desire to love and be loved, for happiness, knowledge, or peace can each manifest in a Godly or ungodly way.) Temptation is the attempt of evil/Satan to pull neutral desires away from a Godly direction to a self-serving, ungodly direction.

Agreed in total. This is why I've maintained in every thread I've discussed this issue in that Jesus was tempted "outside of sin".

Jesus was indeed tempted to act on his desires by Satan, but He was not tempted to sin.Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Mat 4:2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.
Mat 4:3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"

Yes, as we both agree "outside of sin" for it certainly is not a sin to want to eat when you are hungry or to not be in pain when you are in pain. Totally, explicitly, "outside of sin".

I won't deny the truth of that statement. However, James 1:14 is speaking specifically of how every man is tempted. Jesus was also a man, and was also tempted, but instead of sinful desire (lust) the only desires Jesus had for Satan to draw into temptation were Godly desires. I mean, the way I see it, your point of view is basically correct, but is not careful enough to maintain what it means that our savior came very much in the flesh as much as in spirit.

When Scripture says Jesus was made in all ways like us "apart" from sin it means that Jesus was as human as we are except without sin - and zero sin means exactly that, zero. A human nature perfectly united with a Divine nature. I can't stress enough that Historic Christianity is emphatic that the two natures are "united" and NOT blended.

In the above statement you draw attention that Jesus was God and also man. I agree with this provided the understanding is the two Natures are united into the ONE Person, Jesus the Christ. Mary was not the Mother of a Nature, she was the Mother of Jesus, a person like you and I ( apart from sin ) which was and is God Manifested. God became man w/out ceasing to be God.

Claiming the human Jesus was able to sin while the Divine Jesus was not is textbook Nestorianism. Claiming that the two Natures were "blended" so that logically a new third nature was formed is also heresy. Divine Nature "blended" with a Human Nature creating a new, third, alien nature capable of mutation. Certainly not the God of the Christian Scriptures. The nature of a thing directs the actions of a thing.

Jesus was fully God and fully man, one Person composed of a Human & Divine Nature. Christ was a "Person", therefore, if He's fully God and fully Man the two Natures are united into the One Person Jesus The Christ and it becomes alien to suggest that the Natures are "blended" thus producing a third nature that enables God ( Jesus ) to mutate from a state apart from sin to a state of sin. Theologically impossible yet theologically affirmed to be a fact and matter of Doctrine by Ellen White.

Why would a Christ who was tempted have to be tempted to sleep with a woman? That's a temptation that comes after sin.

He would not have "had to be". I used that as an example because 'every' Seventh-day Adventist that's been willing to discuss this with me has been explicit that Jesus was tempted just like me so He would know how to succor me. I've been tempted in this way and I can most certainly assure you I was tempted in this way YEARS prior to actually sleeping with a woman or even touching one for that matter.

When thinking of the way Christ would be tempted, we have to think of a man without original sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned before eating the forbidden fruit (please don't call it an apple ) yet they were very literally tempted. Their desire was not yet saturated in sin, yet their desires were what Satan manipulated when he tempted them. They weren't tempted by sin but to sin by perfectly acceptable desires. Eve desired to be like God - even God desires that we be like Him, and that is the desire Satan exploited. Adam desired to be acceptable to his wife, and what's wrong with that? Here, Satan exploited a loving, wholesome desire to get Adam to sin against God. They weren't tempted by sin, Satan had to be more clever than to just say 'disobey God, what's the worst that could happen?' which is the only sin they committed by eating the fruit. It's just that God commanded them not to. It's like this for Christ, except that Christ never disobeyed His Father.

I don't even think it was actually fruit. Whatever it was transgressed against God. I mean seriously, no one has discovered an angel standing guard with a light saber over a fruit tree, have they? Adam was not God Manifest, Jesus is. Your apology above is the best one I've ever read from someone who believes Christ could have lost His Salvation because He could have sinned but I"m not seeing it equate to Christ being tempted "within sin."

Are you familiar with a catalyst? Just because one thing leads to another does not mean the first is the same as the next, or that the result has grown from the cause. If temptation is sin, Jesus was not tempted, pure and simple. For us, temptation leads to sin because of our nature, not because of the nature of temptation. Every verse of the bible is worded very carefully, and that's what we should expect of words inspired by the Spirit. James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted with evil, not simply that God cannot be tempted. So we know from this that temptation is not synonymous with evil, else 'with evil' would not need to be specified of temptation.

To date you are the first Adventist I've ever heard say that [ If temptation is sin, Jesus was not tempted, pure and simple]. That literally took the steam out of my engine and I'm so glad you said that. Jesus was "fully man" as much as He was fully God, was He not? Are you SDA?

Temptation can't merely be 'baby sin' because sin is not the only result of temptation. Another definition for the Greek word is 'test' and that's all temptation really is, testing. Just like gold is tested, or tempered, by fire, so we are tempted. Temptation shows what we're made of, whether of flesh or of spirit, of straw or gold built on the foundation of Christ.

When it's a temptation we have to "resist" it certainly is a 'baby sin'. One of the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not covet" - a sin of "thought". I thought SDA's believed that the 10 commandments were "moral" laws? The more Christ like and filled with Grace we become the more we can resist 'our' temptations.

My wife is ordering me that it's time to go to bed so I'll leave this for now and God willing, will be back to address your other points.

God Bless

 

[Pythons]

Temptation throughout scripture has a dichotomy. In every instance that temptation leads to sin, it is the flesh that led into that temptation.

Mat 26:41 "Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
​

But Jesus was led by the Spirit into temptation, and the Spirit would not lead into sin, so it cannot be said temptation is sin in and of itself. The result of temptation in this case is not sin, it is proof of God's Glory. And when we are tempted, if we endure, temptation has not led to sin but to greater faith. Take the martyrs, when they were brought before their executioners and given the last chance to renounce the God of their salvation, they surely must have been tempted to do so by their desire to have life. But were they tempted by their own sin in this case? This temptation instead of causing sin proved their faith, because by faith they already had life and so overcame the temptation to sin against God.

Jesus was led by the Spirit 'into the wilderness" to be tempted "OF" the Devil. In each case Jesus was not yearning for sin AKA tempted within Himself. This is where your understanding of "tested" comes into play. I.E. God did not "tempt" the C.O.I. when He didn't rain down bread from heaven on the Sabbath day, God "tested" them to see if they would walk in His law or not. Satan tested Christ and as the Old Testament Prophets said, God Himself came to save us.

God is not tempted of evil, Jesus is God, Satan is pure evil therefore Jesus was tested by the Master of Evil. Because God does not tempt anyone the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be "tested" therefore Jesus did not yearn or long for any sin because a man is only tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust.

Be certain, if I have to "resist" temptation I'm made out of sin.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Vs.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Christ was not shapen in iniquity nor conceived in sin. Fully God and Fully Man with each Nature united ( NOT BLENDED ) to the other.

How is the desire to appreciate the beauty of God's creation a sin, or the desire for a life-partner? It is not a sin to want to look at an attractive woman. The only sin I, as a man, would be in danger of committing is lust. If I had a girlfriend, would it be sinful to look (and only look) at her? Taking it a step further, if I had a wife, would it be a sin to behold her beauty, or even to lust after my own wife? I don't see how.

By nature you and I ( and the world ) naturally twist something good into something evil - that's why God Himself came to save us because we can't save ourselves. This is the basic meaning of discipline as we must discipline ourselves because we do what it is that we should not do by nature. There is no sin in marriage so yes, a husband can lust all he wants over his wife. This is not what's at issue.

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

And of course,

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.



If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.


Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.


For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.


For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.


I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

We must fight our flesh until the day we die because every time we resist sin we know, as Paul so plainly stated, that in us resides no good thing - our human nature is rot and fully carnal and without Christ we are lost. The Scripture states that in Christ was no sin - Paul, a Mike Tyson of the Bible said he was full of it. It's for this reason and tons of others that I believe the Bible plainly teaches that when we are tempted or better said when we feel ourselves pulled toward something we know is wrong that is TEMPTATION and we either resist the pull or go along with it. I may not be tempted to do the same sins you are and you may find my sins repulsive but in each case we are both guilty of being saturated with sin. If we say we are not "tempted" or better said pulled toward evil we are only liars and the truth is not in us.

Because I know God has a wife intended for me, and because every other woman is intended for someone else or for God, I would choose not to look at attractive women unless I can see them as sisters in Christ. I would choose not to be tempted because I know how easily I fall into sin. It is wise to avoid temptation, it is imperative to avoid sin. By avoiding temptation I avoid sin; but if I am tempted I have the power of Christ within me to keep from sinning. If temptation and sin are basically the same, I don't see how it's possible for flesh to withstand temptation.

You may have been blessed in this area Tortoise but there are countless other things you are, by your own foul nature, pulled toward and it's that specific area of the map we are talking about. My sin since age 14 or so has been lusts of the flesh and when I was in the Military I was about as notorious as it gets. Other people have weakness in other areas but I know sin is sin and the Devil knows what to throw at each of us and not all people will fall for the same trap.

We cannot bear sin, that's why we need salvation through Christ. But we can bear temptation. Before I was born again (John 3:3) I was tempted by sin because I had already sinned once before and then continued in sin, perpetuating temptation. After I was born again, I was given a clean slate:

2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
​

Being drawn to repentance, temptation is not like James 1:14 for any sin I have repented of (being made new again if I have stumbled). I am not saturated with the sins of my past because I have been made clean by Christ's blood. (1Jn 1:7) I have not been tempted to sleep with my neighbor's wives since I have been made new. I've been tempted to lust after them in my heart, and repented. I am tempted by pornography every time it comes up in an ad on the internet (stupid Chrome without ad-block), but I don't know the last time I actually sinned from being tempted because since the Lord has freed me of that sinful addiction, I just look away now and click myself away from such things.

It sounds like you are well on the way to being sinless. I'm afraid I'm not at that point yet because the more I read Scripture and pray the more I realize how much I need Jesus. I realize within SDAism there is a teaching many hold to about reaching a state of being sinless ( I've read it over at the Trad section many times ). My guess is that this comes from the type of Trinity worshiped whereas the 2nd Member had a Divine and Human Nature blended into a third nature that felt the pull of every temptation every human has ever had in order to set an example of how to live sin free - of course we need to pour a new definition in what sin really is so we can re-classify it as somthing Christ was saturated with and still not guilty of it. That's a tough one Tortoise.

The temptations Jesus faced were limited to those not resultant of saturation in sin. Jesus was tempted in the garden the night before He was crucified to avoid the suffering and death He knew was coming, even asking God to take away the cup if possible. On the cross, he suffered the temptation to hate God asking "why have you forsaken me?", but even in such anguish, Christ did not sin. But we can't say He wasn't tempted to sin, only that the Spirit prevailed over the flesh every time.

Jesus was quoting Psalm 22. It's not a sin to want to live, again, this is outside of sin. Please don't force me to quote Ellen's many words that said Christ resisted the same temptations you and I must resist. We are talking about Jesus being tempted within Himself for lusts of the flesh and every other sin. I know your vote is already "yes", Jesus could have sinned and been cast into hell but I fully appreciate you talking with me about this.

Heb 2:18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

How could Jesus have suffered temptation, and be able to aid is through our own temptation if He himself was not tempted the same way we are? Indeed, once the saturation of sins we've committed is taken out of the equation, the nature of temptation in our flesh is the same weakness Christ endured in His flesh which He conquered.

If a Medical Doctor ( who did not create us ) does not need to be HIV positive to treat a person with AIDS why in the world would it be necessary for the God who made us to be saturated with sin to aid His own creation? A shrink does not have to become a member of NAMBLA to treat a pedophile.

We agree that Scripture states of Jesus that there was "no sin in him" , "He who knew no sin", etc, etc. We agree that Jesus was fully God and fully man thus the logical observation that Jesus had both a Human and Divine Nature. Since the Person Jesus, has united in Him, both Divine and Human Natures which Christ exactly is it that defeated His own temptations?

But I'm not saying anything like that. All I'm saying is that the way you've been putting it, Christ was superhuman to the point that temptation was not a reality for Him, which would mean it was so easy to resist one might think He wasn't even on earth in the flesh.

The teaching I'm maintaining is that Christ was fully human ( apart from sin ) and fully God ( who cannot be tempted with evil and tempts no man ) God felt pain, hunger, weakness, human sorrow, death and lived as His Own creation in every likeness EXCEPT FOR SIN. That God would do that for such a foul creation is no doubt the greatest mystery of all. To get where you are the two natures require to be blended or mixed together in order to get a new alien nature, one that allows God to cease being God. This is not the Trinity by any stretch of any immagination.

What the Adventist theology seems to do is assume that God created man/flesh to be sinful, which God did not do. The sinful nature of man is inherited. Christ did have to resist his own temptations, just like we do, but the flaw in the Adventist theology (according to what you say) is that this must have led to sin. As I've shown above, I don't believe this is "rightly dividing the word" on the topic of temptation. The two positions here are at opposite ends of the spectrum of Christ's nature. What I understand from scripture is a balance between the two.

God did not create man to be sinful. Man transgressed the commandment of God and lost the state of living in God's Grace. Every person born after that one event inherited the nature of Adam and Eve subsequent to their loss of Grace - thus, man is shapen in iniquity and born into sin. Have you ever watched very little kids interact with each other? I'm talking about the age that has not yet mastered speech. That's human nature Tortoise and each one of us is guilty of it.

This example is a sin that's stacked on top of another sin. One who is
tempted to sleep with his neighbor's wife has already sinned by lusting after her in his heart.

Bingo!!! Yes, exactly. "Has already sinned by lusting after her in his heart". A man does not just magically end up on top of another mans wife, he or she first must "COVET" and if both parties to this event do not RESIST THEIR OWN SIN they end up perfecting THAT SIN so that it becomes full grown, i.e. a Lion is born and becomes fully grown. This is what I'm saying Ellen White said about Christ over and over again.

What I mean is if he had not lusted after his neighbor's wife in his heart in the first place, he would not actually be tempted to sleep with her.

Yes, Praise God! A sin of thought is still a sin.

Say I never lusted after my neighbor's wife, though I was tempted to by her beauty and my own sinful nature.

LOL! If you were tempted to lust you indeed did lust. Unless you are ok with justifying sin isn't actually sin.


Then, say, she propositioned me. If I still have resisted the temptation to lust after her in my heart, though the temptation is stronger at this point, I would not be tempted to sleep with her. Though I may be tempted to sleep with someone now that the opportunity has been presented, I haven't sinned yet. If, however, I were to accept the proposition, I would be sinning multiple times over. Accepting the opportunity to sleep with my neighbor's wife would be first lusting after her in my heart and in that context I would be tempted by sin to continue further in my lust.
[/quote]

You realize you just affirmed man can be Christ, right? Is sin "evil"? Was Jesus a Person or a Nature?

​

 

[Pythons]

After a few detailed PM's between Tortoise and myself I'm removing his 'yes' vote that Christ was peccable or had the ability to mutate into sin. Essentially Tortoise and I believe the same thing, i.e. Christ is "IMPECCABLE" and therefore it would have been impossible for Him to sin. That said Christ certainly was tempted of the Devil and would have suffered the effects sin had placed on our human bodies whereas pain, hunger, etc goes.

Christ was tempted but did not react like we would react. Tortoise had some excellent points I will add to my collective and I want to thank him for keeping with it until I could see what it was he believed.

 

[JediMobius]

I won't comment on points we are in agreement on, hence excluded paragraphs.

You may have been blessed in this area Tortoise but there are countless other things you are, by your own foul nature, pulled toward and it's that specific area of the map we are talking about. My sin since age 14 or so has been lusts of the flesh and when I was in the Military I was about as notorious as it gets. Other people have weakness in other areas but I know sin is sin and the Devil knows what to throw at each of us and not all people will fall for the same trap.

Indeed, it's only one battle in a war that's dragging on, but with the victory of Christ over sin, and the sharing of salvation with us I am seeing the realization of that redemption in my life. It brings hope. I may not rid my life of all conscious sin by the time I die (although I'm not sure if I really believe such a thing as subconscious or unwillful sin exist) but I'm sure going to trust in God and make the attempt.

It sounds like you are well on the way to being sinless. I'm afraid I'm not at that point yet because the more I read Scripture and pray the more I realize how much I need Jesus. I realize within SDAism there is a teaching many hold to about reaching a state of being sinless ( I've read it over at the Trad section many times ). My guess is that this comes from the type of Trinity worshiped whereas the 2nd Member had a Divine and Human Nature blended into a third nature that felt the pull of every temptation every human has ever had in order to set an example of how to live sin free - of course we need to pour a new definition in what sin really is so we can re-classify it as somthing Christ was saturated with and still not guilty of it. That's a tough one Tortoise.

Can one be sinless who has once sinned? I may be a new creation, but who I was is essentially part of who I am. Better to say I'm well on my way to being made pure by the blood of the lamb. Christ is/was sinless, I am not. And I won't be sinless, I will be fully redeemed.

The pull of temptation is strong indeed, but God is stronger. When you talk about temptation and the saturation of sin, our sinful flesh has been saturated with sin because of our own free will, our own choices. It's not temptation's fault. As I illustrated with temptations that draw on desires you agree are not sinful desires, temptation is not inherently sinful, it is a tool. Temptation is a pull that either overwhelms weak flesh or strengthens the spirit. That's where Christ's dual nature comes in. He didn't overcome all temptation because His flesh was divine. No, His flesh was just as weak as ours, but His Spirit was one with God, and the Glory of God can't partake with sin.

Jesus was quoting Psalm 22. It's not a sin to want to live, again, this is outside of sin. Please don't force me to quote Ellen's many words that said Christ resisted the same temptations you and I must resist. We are talking about Jesus being tempted within Himself for lusts of the flesh and every other sin. I know your vote is already "yes", Jesus could have sinned and been cast into hell but I fully appreciate you talking with me about this.

Lol, this is where I understood the confusion. To elaborate, this is how I understand temptation. With Christ, there were no sinful desires to tempt, only righteous desires. At the base of every temptation we Christians are subjected to (being freed from sin, though the flesh may be saturated with sin, the spirit of a Christian is made separate) is a good desire being manipulated by our flesh, by the evil around us, or by Satan. Temptation is just a test, but wherever there is sin in our lives, it will stack on top of that temptation making the pull even stronger - hopelessly so for anyone who doesn't have Christ.

What I'm thinking, in light of this discussion, is that there's a distinction to be made here:

Heb 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Heb 4:15 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.
​

The wicked are truly saturated in sin whereas we believers are being saved. So, perhaps "in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" doesn't include how the old creation was tempted, but only how the new creation who has been sanctified in Christ is tempted. Tempted to turn away from God.

We agree that Scripture states of Jesus that there was "no sin in him" , "He who knew no sin", etc, etc. We agree that Jesus was fully God and fully man thus the logical observation that Jesus had both a Human and Divine Nature. Since the Person Jesus, has united in Him, both Divine and Human Natures which Christ exactly is it that defeated His own temptations?

The divine aspect of the one person, I would say.

The teaching I'm maintaining is that Christ was fully human ( apart from sin ) and fully God ( who cannot be tempted with evil and tempts no man ) God felt pain, hunger, weakness, human sorrow, death and lived as His Own creation in every likeness EXCEPT FOR SIN. That God would do that for such a foul creation is no doubt the greatest mystery of all. To get where you are the two natures require to be blended or mixed together in order to get a new alien nature, one that allows God to cease being God. This is not the Trinity by any stretch of any immagination.

If that blending is what the Adventist position does, the remedy is likely held in exploring the mystery of the nature of the Son of Man, the Word made Flesh, as you and I have been doing. You and I know that the two natures don't have to be blended, they already coexisted in one person who is one in being with two other persons yet all one God. The key to this understanding, I think, is that Jesus's flesh body was like the flesh created in Genesis - a good work, and not fallen. In contrast, the flesh of men is fallen and the spirit of each man fallen with it. Also, Adam and Eve's spirits were created, Christ's Spirit was begotten in the beginning with God. I can see how it would be hard to differentiate between the nature of flesh that is not fallen and our flesh which began fallen, because the latter is all we've really experienced, only having a taste of the former as a promise of what's to come.

LOL! If you were tempted to lust you indeed did lust. Unless you are ok with justifying sin isn't actually sin.

Now hold on, sin doesn't need to be redefined for this to make sense. If I am tempted to steal, I have already sinned by being covetous. If I am tempted to be covetous, and resist, what sin have I committed?

You realize you just affirmed man can be Christ, right? Is sin "evil"? Was Jesus a Person or a Nature?

This confuses me, but maybe it's out of context now that we've established what we agree on.



Anyway, what a rich discussion this has been! Every point you made that I omitted was right on the mark, and I've pondered mysteries of God I never really explored til now with your help. Thank you.

 

[Pythons]

I won't comment on points we are in agreement on, hence excluded paragraphs.



Indeed, it's only one battle in a war that's dragging on, but with the victory of Christ over sin, and the sharing of salvation with us I am seeing the realization of that redemption in my life. It brings hope. I may not rid my life of all conscious sin by the time I die (although I'm not sure if I really believe such a thing as subconscious or unwillful sin exist) but I'm sure going to trust in God and make the attempt.

Amen! My hope as well. I know I'm doing better then I was a year ago and the goal of not living in sin is certainly a Christian goal.

Can one be sinless who has once sinned? I may be a new creation, but who I was is essentially part of who I am. Better to say I'm well on my way to being made pure by the blood of the lamb. Christ is/was sinless, I am not. And I won't be sinless, I will be fully redeemed.

Amen again!

The pull of temptation is strong indeed, but God is stronger. When you talk about temptation and the saturation of sin, our sinful flesh has been saturated with sin because of our own free will, our own choices. It's not temptation's fault.

Free will w/out the lust for evil ended with our first parents. Since then we have extra help toward sin. It's not really our fault but as through one man sin came to all so also by one Man comes life.

As I illustrated with temptations that draw on desires you agree are not sinful desires, temptation is not inherently sinful, it is a tool. Temptation is a pull that either overwhelms weak flesh or strengthens the spirit. That's where Christ's dual nature comes in. He didn't overcome all temptation because His flesh was divine. No, His flesh was just as weak as ours, but His Spirit was one with God, and the Glory of God can't partake with sin.

Agreed. The desire for "evil" is classified with fornication and covetousness therefore a person must first be pulled toward a thing prior to resisting it. Given that a man is tempted when he is pulled toward something he wants to do it becomes obvious that Christ never "resisted" an urge to fornicate, steal, murder, etc.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry

Lol, this is where I understood the confusion. To elaborate, this is how I understand temptation. With Christ, there were no sinful desires to tempt, only righteous desires. At the base of every temptation we Christians are subjected to (being freed from sin, though the flesh may be saturated with sin, the spirit of a Christian is made separate) is a good desire being manipulated by our flesh, by the evil around us, or by Satan. Temptation is just a test, but wherever there is sin in our lives, it will stack on top of that temptation making the pull even stronger - hopelessly so for anyone who doesn't have Christ.

Yes, again agreed.

What I'm thinking, in light of this discussion, is that there's a distinction to be made here:

Heb 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Heb 4:15 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.
​

The wicked are truly saturated in sin whereas we believers are being saved. So, perhaps "in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" doesn't include how the old creation was tempted, but only how the new creation who has been sanctified in Christ is tempted. Tempted to turn away from God.

Like you pointed out earlier in this post, God does not partake in sin, therefore, since evil desire is classified as sin by Scripture Jesus was not tempted within Himself toward ANY sin.

The divine aspect of the one person, I would say.

This is a contention I'm having some trouble with. Jesus was a Person with "two natures" thus fully God and fully man therefore Jesus, "as a Person" operated in a sinless state from the Incarnation, exactly as He did prior to the Incarnation. The "Human" Nature in total harmony with the Divine Nature so that each Nature perfectly completed all tasks at 100% perfection without one nature taking over and acting out tasks for the other.

If that blending is what the Adventist position does, the remedy is likely held in exploring the mystery of the nature of the Son of Man, the Word made Flesh, as you and I have been doing. You and I know that the two natures don't have to be blended, they already coexisted in one person who is one in being with two other persons yet all one God. The key to this understanding, I think, is that Jesus's flesh body was like the flesh created in Genesis - a good work, and not fallen. In contrast, the flesh of men is fallen and the spirit of each man fallen with it. Also, Adam and Eve's spirits were created, Christ's Spirit was begotten in the beginning with God. I can see how it would be hard to differentiate between the nature of flesh that is not fallen and our flesh which began fallen, because the latter is all we've really experienced, only having a taste of the former as a promise of what's to come.

Again agreed, with the caveat that the Natures CAN NOT be blended.

Now hold on, sin doesn't need to be redefined for this to make sense. If I am tempted to steal, I have already sinned by being covetous. If I am tempted to be covetous, and resist, what sin have I committed?

You don't realize that you've "coveted" until after the act is done. I catch myself ALL THE TIME with a; "hey, stop that", "You are doing something you shouldn't" etc. If you are tempted "within yourself" it's just your particular sin attempting to "perfect" itself.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man

This confuses me, but maybe it's out of context now that we've established what we agree on.

If you find yourself "resisting" the temptation to "lust" after the woman you want to lust after the woman therefore you are being "tempted" for what you already want to do. This is exactly what I'm saying Christ DIDN'T do. It's also the reason I said one would have to re-define what "without sin" means because a Christ who had to resist his temptation to mentally lust after someone else' wife is NOT "The" Christ.

Anyway, what a rich discussion this has been! Every point you made that I omitted was right on the mark, and I've pondered mysteries of God I never really explored til now with your help. Thank you.

Yes, I probably learned more from you then you learned from me and I'm going to look over a few things with fresh ideas and test them.

 

[Mankin]

Imo it is far more important that Jesus did not do such a thing rather than if he was capable of such a feat.

Although I assume if Jesus could do something like that and chose not to, then that would give the perfectionists some ammo.

However let's think of it in this respect. If God is God, does he have to follow by a set of rules? Is God subject to a set of morals or can He be whatever he chooses? Just some food for thought.

 

[Pythons]

Imo it is far more important that Jesus did not do such a thing rather than if he was capable of such a feat.

Although I assume if Jesus could do something like that and chose not to, then that would give the perfectionists some ammo.

However let's think of it in this respect. If God is God, does he have to follow by a set of rules? Is God subject to a set of morals or can He be whatever he chooses? Just some food for thought.

Certainly more important, however, would / could doctrines be built upon the premise Christ was capable of such a feat?