Lets start with a verse that tells us about the nature of Christ:
Romans 8:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Now I was listening to Adventist theologian Herbert Douglass, who knew many of those involved including M. L. Andersean, on Amazing Facts, and he in went in depth over the Adventist book Questions on Doctrine, but to my surprise did not make one quote from the book that he had a issue with. Instead he quoted others who said it had an effect on how Adventist looked at the nature of Christ and the Atonement. So I looked over the history of what occurred and found that the book was written to answer critics especially Calvinist theologians who had felt that Adventist tended to hold that Christ was not only made flesh in the nature of Adam after the fall, but had sinful desires especially by the Adventist practice of saying Christ had "Sinful Flesh". Now we know that the lusts of the eye as well as the lusts of the flesh were shown by Christ to be sin, and if Christ was found with no sin, then Jesus could not have had these carnal desires and still be sinless. So what did the Calvinist find that led them to this idea, and what did Walter Martin and Barnhouse do that led to Questions on Doctrine.
Well we find that In the late 1800's, sporadic outbreaks of emotionally-expressive and body-centered worship styles occurred in various branches of evangelical Protestantism, and the Holiness movement in particular spawned dozens of these, each with unique doctrinal content and associated personalities. An Adventist version, the so-called "holy flesh movement," came into the church through A. F. Ballenger who was in turn influenced by the Holiness movement and who advocated an emphasis on the Holy Spirit in Christian thought and life. The beliefs of this group, in relation to the nature of Christ differed in the teaching on the incarnation which dominated the thinking of the leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement in Indiana from 1898 to 1901. In Indiana, Ballenger's ideas were picked up by S. S. Davis, a minister and evangelist was influenced by Pentecostals he worked with, who was supported by his Conference president, Robert Donnell. While this Movement did receive the official endorsement of some local conference committees and administration, its work and teachings did not represent the official viewpoint of the Church as a whole at that time.
The Holy Flesh theory claimed that those who followed the Saviour must have their fallen natures perfected by passing through a “Garden of Gethsemane” experience. The records from eyewitness accounts report that in their services the followers of this holy flesh movement" worked up a high pitch of excitement by use of musical instruments such as organs, flutes, fiddles, tambourines, horns, and even a big bass drum. They sought a physical demonstration of the "spirit" and shouted and prayed and sang until someone in the congregation would fall, prostrate and unconscious, from his seat. When the subject revived, he was counted among those who had passed through the "Gethsemane experience", had obtained holy flesh, and had translation faith. Thereafter, it was asserted, he could not sin and had obtained a form of immortal assurance. How it relates to the issue at hand is on the doctrinal teachings of this movement regarding the nature of Christ's humanity, that He took the nature of Adam before the Fall.
Adventist were warned against the 'Holy Flesh Movement' with its idea of being made 'holy' by just getting the 'spirit' such as we see in the Pentecostalists/Charasmatics had made inroads in some conferences, but Ellen Whites counsel had brought it to stop in the church by 1901. But then after Ellen Whites death, Adventist fell into another snare, the idea that Christ was filled with the same desires began to take hold from the use of the words that Christ was made "sinful flesh" in Adventist publications. Many projected there own sinful failings into these words, rather than accept the correct understanding. This is what critics saw, a church whose member believed Christ was not just made flesh, but desired to sin.
Because the critics had found this in the publications it was brought to the attention of Adventist theologians who sought to give a better more correct explanation, but it caused some discomfort. Adventist doctrine clearly held that Jesus did not sin, that at no time, and in no wise did He yield to sin. But then what did He receive from His mother Mary, for He was the seed of David according to human descent. In the Ministry Magazine a article came out at the time in which stress was laid on the fact that Jesus was the 'seed of the woman', not of man. Now if, and this is what was some Adventist found disturbing, Jesus did not inherit through Mary on His human side all that we inherit by human nature, then what kind of nature did Mary have, and how far is this from the Immaculate Conception doctrine of Catholicism? We shall look at that question, but lets first take a look at the nature of Christ and what happened as Adventist settled into the idea that Christ had what can only be seen as Mans sinful desires and the shock of correction.
In the 1950s, Questions on Doctrine (QOD) was published by the church. Let me give you the background.
Some of the Adventist beliefs led to pressure by Calvinist theologians and others to have Adventist put as outside of Christian orthodoxy. In the 1950s Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin came to the Adventist leaders with some questions. Barnhouse was the publisher of Eternity magazine, and Martin was a researcher on cults—non-mainstream religious movements held by sometimes self-proclaimed majority Christians to be heretical, error-teaching bodies. Already Martin had written a number of books excoriating other religious groups as cults. His latest project was a book on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The introduction in QOD says that Martin's book had been planned to particularly emphasize “those areas wherein Adventist teachings differ from some other Christian groups.”
A group of Adventist Church leaders met with Martin and Barnhouse. Martin and Barnhouse presented their assertions that certain theological views expressed in several of our books in print were unacceptable if we expected to be viewed as orthodox Christians. The Seventh-day Adventists insisted to Martin and Barnhouse that this church was in the process of updating things, and that like every church, Adventists had our own conservative “lunatic fringe” to deal with.
Three main questions especially concerned Martin and Barnhouse: (1) What we teach about the atonement, (2) What we teach about the role of works in salvation, and (3) What we teach concerning the nature of Jesus' humanity? Other teachings held by Adventists such as the role of Ellen White concerned them also, but those three were the all-consuming ones. Martin and Barnhouse let the Seventh-day Adventist leaders know that their response to what was the church position on these views would have a impact on what they would write. In QOD, that volume's authors wrote,
The critics appear to cite some statements “out of context,” and it appears it bothered them not the least, the fact that Adventists had “no formal creed” made it desirable and necessary for Adventist to declare the churchs position on the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second person of the godhead, was not one with the Father from all eternity, and that His death on the cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement.
Differences associated with the Calvinist-Arminian dispute were a major part in the debate (Adventism is soteriologically Arminian), but Martin did not regard conformity to Calvinism as a test of Christian orthodoxy. In 1962 Norman F. Douty published Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism and Herbert Bird, Theology of Seventh-day Adventism, both of which argued that Adventists were still a cult. Dutch Calvinist theologian Anthony Hoekema grouped Adventism together with Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science in his 1963 publication The Four Major Cults. In this book Hoekema praised Adventists for moving away from Arianism, but argues that Questions on Doctrine failed to truly repudiate the doctrine of Christ's sinful nature, and similarly failed to remove ambiguities and inconsistencies regarding the atonement.
Now looking at the question of "formal creed, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had developed in America out of the Second Advent Movement led by William Miller, a Baptist lay-preacher. The doctrinal emphasis during the early decades of the Church's development and growth reflected similar tenets which marked the Millerite Movement plus those distinctive concepts of faith which set the Seventh-day Adventist Church apart as the instrument used by God to herald the Third Angel's Message. In 1822, William Miller prepared a "brief statement of faith" which was composed of twenty articles, one of which was left incomplete. Among the subjects not included in the twenty articles of faith was the doctrine of the incarnation.
Most of the Statements from 1844-1888 in regard to the human nature which Christ assumed at Bethlehem are to be found in the early writings of Ellen G. White. These statements are specific and clearly enunciated. The first statement appeared in 1858. In describing the time when Jesus made the announcement of the plan of redemption to the unfallen angels, she writes that He told them that - - "He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear on earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted in His own experience with the various temptations with which men would be beset, that He might know how to succour those who should be tempted."(Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1., p. 24.).
This was difficult for the angels to accept, and they offered themselves as substitutes; but Jesus informed them that the life of an angel could not pay the debt for sin. He, however, assured them that they would have a part to play in the plan for man's redemption. Note carefully the words – what Jesus Himself said would take place:
"Jesus also told them that they should have a part to act, to be with Him, and at different times strengthen Him. That He should take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1., p. 25).
In the 1870s as Ellen White began to write more fully on the life and mission of Jesus Christ, comprehensive statements on the Incarnation appeared. Except for two articles on the subject of tithing, all the written material from her pen in the Review for the year 1874 was on the subject of the plan of redemption and the temptations of Christ. In these articles the following specific statements are to be found which define the nature of the humanity Christ took upon Himself in becoming man.
"The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam....
What love! What amazing condescension! The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity! He would place His feet in Adam's steps. He would take man's fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who (had) triumphed over Adam." (Review & Herald, Feb. 24, 1874).
"The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wondered four thousand years from Eden and from the original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family.
When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. He stood in the strength of his perfection before God. All the organs and faculties of his being were equally developed, and harmoniously balanced.
Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure. Ηere Christ overcame in the sinner's behalf, four thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. Separated from the presence of God, the human family had been departing every successive generation farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed. . . .
In what contrast is the second Adam as Ηe entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan single-handed. Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ's advent to earth. And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He, who knew nο sin, became sin for us. He humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that he might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him." (Review & Herald, Jul, 28, 1874).
"The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and, identified itself with the weaknesses and necessities of fallen man, while His divine nature grasped the Eternal. . Christ's work was to reconcile man to God through His human nature, and God to man through His divine nature." (Review & Herald, August 4, 1874).
Because man fallen could not overcome Satan with his human strength, Christ came from the royal courts of Heaven to help him with His human and divine strength combined. Christ knew that Adam in Eden, with his superior advantages, might have withstood the temptations of Satan, and conquered him. He also knew that it is not possible for man, out of Eden, separated from the light and love of God since the Fall, to resist the temptations of Satan in his own strength. In order to bring hope to man, and save him from complete ruin, He humbled Himself to take man's nature, that, with His divine power combined with the human, He might reach man where he is. He obtains for the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that strength which it is impossible for them to obtain for themselves, that in His name they may overcome the temptations of Satan (Review & Herald, August 18, 1874).
During the first part of the year 1875, the articles from the pen of Ellen White continued to present the temptations of Christ. She commented - "How few can understand the love of God for the fallen race in that He withheld not His divine Son from taking upon Him the humiliation of humanity" (Review & Herald, March 18, 1875). She pointed to the fact that Satan put forth his strongest efforts to overcome Christ on the point of appetite at a time when He was enduring the keenest pangs of hunger. Then she wrote:
"The victory gained was designed, not only to set an example to those who have fallen under the power of appetite, but to qualify the Redeemer for His special work of reaching to the very depths of human woe. By experiencing in Himself the strength of Satan's temptation, and of human sufferings and infirmities, He would know better how to succour those who should put forth efforts to help themselves" (Review & Herald March 18, 1875).
In 1878, Ellen White wrote a letter to a young man setting Christ before him as the "great Exemplar." She quoted Hebrews 2:17 that "Christ was made like unto His brethren." Then she commented:
"Ηe felt both joy and grief as they feel. His body was susceptible to weariness, as yours. His mind, like yours, could be harassed and perplexed. If you have hardships, so did He. Satan could tempt Him. His enemies could annoy Him. . . . Jesus was sinless and had no dread of the consequences of sin. With this exception His condition was as yours. You have not a difficulty that did not press with equal weight upon Him, not a sorrow that His heart has not experienced. His feelings could be hurt with neglect, with indifferences of professed friends, as easily as yours. Is your ρathway thorny? Christ's was so in a tenfold sense. Are you distressed? So was He. How well fitted was Christ to be an example." (Letter 17, 1878)
About this time, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, was published. In this volume a specific contrast between man's fallen nature and Christ's humanity is made. Ellen G. White wrote:
Our Saviour identifies Himself with our needs and weaknesses, in that He became a suppliant, a mighty petitioner, seeking from His Father fresh supplies of strength, to come forth invigorated and refreshed, braced for duty and trial. 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. Ηis humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, pp. 201-202).
Commenting further on the prayer life of Jesus, she penned the following:
"He prayed for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings, which are so common with humanity. 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. Jesus endured agony which required help and support from His Father." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2., pp. 508-509).
As one reads the last two references, it would appear these statements are at variance with what had been written prior to, and contemporary, with these statements. There is neither conflict nor a contradiction when one understands how Ellen White understood and used the word "passion." The following paragraph illustrates her use and understanding of the word as well as the phrase - "the inclinations of the natural heart." It reads:
"No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must first be gained; the soul must purpose the sinful act, before passion can dominate over reason, or iniquity triumph over conscience. Temptation, however strong, is never an excuse for sin. ... Cast yourself, helpless, unworthy, upon Jesus, and claim His very promise. The Lord will hear. He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart, and He will help in every time of need." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 177)
Another statement defining the nature of the humanity Christ assumed appeared in 1877. It reads:
"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Ηimself the form and nature of fallen man, that He might be made perfect through suffering, and Himself endure the strength of Satan's fierce temptation, that He might understand how to succour those that should be tempted." (Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 2, p. 39)
In 1887 Ellen White wrote an article for the Review (Review & Herald, July 5, 1887) regarding pride that was leading to strife for supremacy. She set before the reader Christ's sacrifice as an example to be emulated. In so doing she stated certain facts that involved the nature of the humanity Christ assumed. Three points were clearly enunciated:
1) He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for a little while relinquished.
2) He humbled Himself and took mortality upon Him. As a member of the human family He was mortal.
3) He brought into His human nature all the life-giving energies that human beings will need and must receive.
Around this time, Jones and Waggoner brought their insight into the incarnation in their writings, and then came out in the General Conference of 1888 with the Righteousness by Faith understanding which included of necessity, a discussion of the nature of the humanity which the Son of God assumed. Their concepts on the subject of the incarnation produced opposition. Some of those who were opposed wrote to Sister White. These did not simply write to the prophetess to obtain the light she had been given in regard to the humanity of the Son of man, but to assert their doubts as the basis for questioning. To these questioners, she replied in a morning talk given at Battle Creek, Michigan on January 29, 1890. She revealed that "letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had He would have fallen under similar temptations." To this reasoning she declared: "If He did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature." (Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, bk. i, p. 408.)
To Ellen G. White, the incarnation was "a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in all its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood." However, she cautioned that "the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness." Ellen G. White, Letter 280, 1904 (5BC:1113)
In 1896, Ellen White wrote: "In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem's manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fulness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one." Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896.
It is in this union "that we find the hope of our fallen race." Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896, SOP says, "The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God." Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, October 13, 1898. Therefore, we need to "fix our minds on the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or heaven the incarnation of the Son of God." Ellen G. White, MS 76, 1903 (7BC:904).
SOP tells us: "There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible. As "one with the Father", "the Lord Jesus Christ... existed from eternity a distinct person." Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.
While Ellen G. White definitely states that "we cannot explain how divinity was clothed with humanity",Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, October 1, 1889. Ellen G. White in her writings during this period unfold various fundamental aspects of what took place when Christ became man. In 1899, she wrote:
"Christ, at an infinite cost, by a painful process, mysterious to angels as well as to men, assumed humanity. Hiding His divinity
laying aside His glory, He was born a babe in Bethlehem." Ellen G. White, MS 29, 1899. In creation, Christ had given "to humanity an existence outside of Himself;" but "in redemption, He takes humanity unto Himself. He makes it a part of His own being." We might then ask - "Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person - the man Christ Jesus." (Ellen G. White, "The Word Made Flesh" Andreasen Collection # 2.)
So was the divine nature degraded by accepting the human nature formed in the womb of Mary? The answer is clearly no, "In Christ, divinity and humanity were combined. Divinity was not degraded to humanity; divinity held its place, but humanity by being united to divinity withstood the fiercest test of temptation in the wilderness." Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, bk. i, p. 408. What then is meant when the expression - Christ "united humanity with divinity" - is used in the Spirit of Prophecy? Note the following two quotations: "He [Christ] united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. He united Himself with the temple. Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, December 20, 1900 (4BC:1147). In His person, humanity inhabited by divinity was represented to the world. (Ellen G. White, "The Kingdom of Christ" June 13, 1896.)
The nature of the humanity of the Son of God - "a distinct person" in His own right from eternity - is also clearly and unmistakably set forth by the servant of the Lord. While Christ was declared to be the second Adam, He did not accept the nature of Adam in his innocency, but Adam's fallen nature. She wrote: "In Christ were united the divine and the human - the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam the transgressor, meet in Jesus - the Son of God, and the Son of man." (Ellen G. White, MS 141, 1901.)
Neither is there any doubt left as to the condition of the humanity which Christ accepted in connection with Himself. On this point it was written: "Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." (Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, December 20, 1900 (4BC:1147).)
"Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of condescension He would be enabled to pour out His blessings in behalf of the fallen race. " (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, July 17, 1900.)
Lest she be misunderstood, what she meant by the term, "human nature", or when she stated that Christ became "flesh", Ellen G. White emphasized that it was "in the likeness of sinful flesh.". In an article for the Youth's Instructor, she penned these words - "Let children bear in mind that the child Jesus had taken upon Himself human nature, and was in the likeness of sinful flesh, * and was tempted of Satan as all children are tempted." (Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, August 23, 1894.)
SOP says "He [Christ] was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh." Ellen G. White, W-106-1896. We see Sister White used the expression, "likeness of sinful flesh" - which is a Biblical phrase and we have to look to see if she meant that the nature that Jesus assumed was not the nature of Adam after the Fall, but only something which physically resembled it. However, in two published sources it is plainly stated that "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature", Ellen G. White, Medical Ministry, p. 181. And "He took upon Him our sinful nature." (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, December 15, 1896.)
While being specific as to the nature that Christ assumed, Ellen White was just as pointed as to the results of such a union. She declared - "In His human nature, He maintained the purity of His divine character." Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898. "In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin." Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898 "No taint of sin was found on Him." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, January 16, 1896.)
The article in the Signs of the Times from which the last sentence was quoted bore the title - "Sin Condemned in the Flesh." In this article the various Bible texts, which refer to Christ's sinlessness are quoted, such as, "that holy thing"; "He did no sin"; "knew no sin"; "in Him was no sin"; and that Christ was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." Then this sentence is written - "This testimony concerning Christ plainly shows that He condemned sin in the flesh." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, January 16, 1896.)
Going forward to the events leading up to QOD, the Adventist leaders agreed to receive the questions presented by Martin and Calvinist critics. Martin came armed with dozens. The ensuing dialogue would result in the publishing of two books: one by the Adventist Church, with the working-title, Questions and Answers, and another by Martin, who would delay the publishing of his book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism6 until after the Adventists had first published theirs.
'Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine' was the name of the Adventists' eventually-published book. It contained several good and helpful sections. Those are not the problem. But many Adventists were especially concerned about the sections presenting Seventh-day Adventist teachings on the atonement and also the nature of Christ. Some claimed that whereas Adventists previously had believed that the atonement is being completed in heaven by Christ now, QOD now was holding that it was completed at the cross. And that whereas Adventists had held that Jesus took the humanity of humankind after the fall, QOD said it was before the fall. But Herbert Douglas, in his presentation did not lay out or quote from QOD any parts to support this, which caught my attention and led to me to look to see what it is actually there. We have to understand that "in the likeness of sinful flesh" did not mean Christ had a desire to sin or lusts of the flesh or lusts of the eye, he was dead to sin but alive to the Holy Spirit and as it clearly says, He "condemned sin in the flesh." The "Mind of Christ" was sinless as Adam had before the fall.
We look at Romans 6:
Romans 6 King James Version (KJV)
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Jesus took Adam’s human nature after the fall, "sinful flesh". But Jesus did not have a tendency to sin, nor did Jesus develop a desire to sin, His spiritual nature was that of Adam before the fall, without sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our nature after centuries of deterioration and damage from sin, but yet He had no sin, so no lustful desire or lust in the eye, and we cannot allow us to say that He had sinful desire, thus its ok for us. No, never.
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.
Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we don’t take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us, but Christ using the same power we have available to us today, resisted and kept from and did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations.
1 Peter 1:18-19
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
My understanding is we have to have the same righteousness as Christ 'in the flesh' had, we must take off our filthy rags and put own His garment He provides, as just as we must do in becoming dead to sin, Christ did, and if with the Holy Spirit we are made dead to sin and ungodly desire, we then allow for Christ to be in us and we in Him, and put on His righteousness and become "alive unto God".
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So Christ has no advantage when it comes to sin....
Now after the publishing of QOD, the group of evangelicals became convinced that Seventh-day Adventists were sufficiently orthodox to be considered within Christian orthodoxy. Barnhouse published his conclusions in the September 1956 issue of Eternity magazine in the article, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" In it, they concluded, "Seventh-day Adventists are a truly Christian group, rather than an anti-Christian cult. In Barnhouse's article it was stated that most Adventists believed in the sinless human nature of Christ. Then Le Roy Edwin Froom in February 1957 published an article on the atonement in Ministry magazine. In this article Froom argued that the atonement was a "full and complete sacrifice". Froom's articulation of the atonement still held to the Adventist belief in Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary going into the Holy of Holies to begin a final atonement for humanity, but then M. L. Andreason came into the picture.
M. L. Andreason, recently retired former dean of the SDA Theological Seminary, a leading denominational scholar on the sanctuary system and the book of Hebrews, author also of the SDA Bible commentary section on Hebrews, began to raise concern with church leadership about beliefs which were being revised without General Conference Session approval. A long series of interactions with church leaders ensued before Andreason published his six “Letters to the Churches.” Andreason was asked to write all his concerns and the church would publish it and it could be reviewed, but Andreason did not submit it, instead continuing his public letters despite the church leaders request to work with them. When all had run its course, Andreason had had his credentials revoked. At the end, Andreason came to a understanding with the church leaders and reconciled with the church leadership just before he died and his credentials were posthumously restored. The controversy produced by the publishing of QOD led to a decision by church leaders not to continue to publish it and they allowed the book to go out of print. But then there was a decision to republish QOD years later. Ronald Knott at Andrews University Press, George R. Knight at the SDA Theological Seminary, and Woodrow W. Whidden III were some of those favoring or involved in the project. Whidden published an article in the August 2003 Ministry magazine announcing the imminent arrival of the new edition.
Now we have to take in mind that one of the reasons the Calvinist theologians who were the main critics who pushed for Adventist to be labeled a cult was that Adventists oppose the Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines of predestination (or unconditional election), limited atonement and perseverance of the saints ("once saved always saved").
The Seventh-day Adventist church stands in the Wesleyan tradition (which in turn is an expression of Arminianism) in regard to its soteriological teachings. Wesley's views are opposed to the Augustinian/Tridentine version of justification which understood divine acquittal and forgiveness as the fruit of an infused righteousness.
This is significant in two respects. Firstly, there is a very strong emphasis in Adventist teaching on sanctification as a necessary and inevitable consequence of salvation in Christ. Such an emphasis on obedience is not considered to detract from the reformation principle of sola fide ("faith alone"), but rather to provide an important balance to the doctrine of justification by faith, and to guard against antinomianism. While asserting that Christians are saved entirely by the grace of God, Adventists also stress obedience to the law of God as the proper response to salvation. Secondly, Adventist teaching strongly emphasizes free will; each individual is free either to accept or reject God's offer of salvation.
Adventist also do not accept what some call "Original Sin". Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt. Adventists believe that humans are sinful primarily due to the fall of Adam, but they do not accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt. According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model, and this was no less a concern by Calvinist critics.
Adventists teachings de-emphasize the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They hold "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity. Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.
Now a view that some have brought up in that they point to as relevant to why Andreasen protested QOD was his stand on perfection, which needs to be looked at. In his book The Sanctuary Service (1947), Andreasen taught that sinless perfection can be achieved. This belief was that a final generation of believers, who will live through the "time of trouble" (between the close of probation and second coming of Christ), must and will attain a state of sinlessness comparable to the pre-fall condition of Adam and Eve. This has to be looked at in terms of do we achieve this of ourselves as some hold, or by acceptance of Christ righteousness and the transformation work of the Holy Spirit, I tend to believe that scripture clearly shows it is not of self.
Now here is Dennis Prebie's veiw on the doctrinal conflict QOD brought to the forefront and what theologian M. L. Andreason and Herbert Douglass held were issues with it:
"Herbert Douglass, one who was intimately involved in the 1950s and 1960s struggles over Questions on Doctrine , agreed to express this alternative perspective." ( Ministry, August, 2004, p. 16)
There are some revealing words used in this editorial preface. The historic Adventist view is that Christ took fallen human nature. The new, alternative Adventist view is that Christ took a partly fallen and partly unfallen nature. But here the editor calls the historic Adventist view the "alternative perspective," implying that the new view is really the mainstream and orthodox view, while the historic view is just a different, minority perspective. By careful word choices public opinion is often conditioned to accept new ideas, all the while believing that the "new view" is really the established view.
Douglass begins by quoting George Knight's opinion that "this book...'easily qualifies as the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history. A book published largely to help bring peace between Adventism and conservative Protestantism, its release brought prolonged alienation and separation to the Adventist factions that grew up around it.'"
Douglass continues by describing what happened as QOD was being prepared for printing. "You can imagine our astonishment when we began to see the galleys of the forthcoming book with comments such as this one on pages 8,9: 'The replies were prepared by a group of recognized leaders, in close counsel with Bible teachers, editors, and administrators....These answers represent the position of our denomination in the area of church doctrine and prophetic interpretation....Hence this volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church..' But as far as we and some others were concerned, these statements did not represent the reality surrounding the production of QOD. Many were troubled by the direction of the book and told the authors so."
Douglass again quotes George Knight's observation that "Milton L. Andreasen, 'the denomination's most influential theologian and theological writer in the late 1930s and throughout the 1940s, had been left out of the process in both the formulation of the answers and the critiquing of them, even though he had been generally viewed as an authority on several of the disputed points.'...
"Froom took a poll of Adventist leaders and discovered that 'nearly all of them' felt that Christ had our sinful nature. Further, the recently retired General Conference president, W. H. Branson, wrote in the 1950 edition of his Drama of the Ages that Christ in His incarnation took 'upon Himself sinful flesh.' But Froom and Anderson nevertheless affirmed in what appeared to George Knight to be a 'less than transparent' way that 'the majority of the denomination has always held' the humanity of Christ 'to be sinless, holy, and perfect' despite the fact that certain writers had occasionally gotten into print with contrary views. Unfortunately, this is what they told Walter Martin....One of Froom's letters acknowledged that in QOD 'some of the statements are a bit different from what you might anticipate.'
"Many have felt that if Andreasen, with his undisputed theological experience, had been asked to participate in formulating answers to Martin's questions, theological equilibrium would have prevailed. Here again we must recognize the Calvinistic presuppositions of Barnhouse, Martin, and other confreres. For them the human Jesus was 'impeccable,' that is, incapable of sinning...."
Now here is Julius Lams research on this in his "Questions on Doctrine and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions"
:
"Andreasen’s entry into the conversations over the Adventist-evangelical dialogues and Questions on Doctrine came quite late in the process partly because he was living in southern California having retired in 1950 after a half century of denominational work[iii] and also because he was not one of the 250 Adventist workers selected to give pre-publication review of Questions on Doctrine.
When he first read Barnhouse’s September 1956 Eternity article, in which he declared Adventism evangelical, the 80-year-old retired theologian was living in Glendale, California. Andreasen was immediately troubled by what he read in Barnhouse’s article. His concerns centered on Barnhouse’s claims that not only were Adventists denying doctrinal positions attributed to them previously, but also were said to be in the course of changing some of their teachings such as the investigative judgment doctrine.
Andreasen was further disturbed by Barnhouse’s declaration that those who opposed the “new position” taken by Adventist leaders belonged to the “‘lunatic fringe,’” and “wild-eyed irresponsibles.”. According to Steinweg, Andreasen’s biographer, this latter statement seemed to Andreasen “like a return to the days of the Inquisition” and led him to consider “a call to take up sentinel duty” to protect what he believed to be historic Adventist orthodoxy.
What actually prompted Andreasen to voice his concerns, however, was Froom’s February 1957 article in Ministry entitled “The Priestly Application of the Atoning Act.” In this article, Froom stated that Christ’s death provided “a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man’s sin” and “a completed act of atonement.”
...Andreasen’s central concern was that Froom had put the cross event and the post-1844 heavenly event “in juxtaposition and on the same basis” which resulted in a “shallow and confused” understanding of the atonement. In concluding the diatribe against Froom’s article, Andreasen expressed the deep apprehension that he felt toward the Adventist-evangelical conferences, the articles by Barnhouse and Martin, and the planned publication of Questions on Doctrine: “Adventists will not permit any man or group of men to make a ‘creed’ for them, and tell them what to believe.
....Andreasen issued a document entitled “A Review and a Protest”[xvii] This document did not contain any new arguments, but summarized and reiterated his objections to Froom’s description of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
...Andreasen began issuing a series of manuscripts entitled “The Atonement,” following the title of his first manuscript of February 15 and numbered retroactively to that document. Between November 4, 1957, and March 13, 1958, he fired off seven more papers, striking each time at the section on the atonement in Questions on Doctrine. During this time, the only concern he had with the book was with “the section on the Atonement” which he deemed “utterly unacceptable.” As for the rest of the book, he actually commended it as containing “so many good things . . . that may be of real help to many.”
....During the same period, the epistolary joust between Andreasen and (GC President) Figuhr continued. Figuhr responded to Andreasen by refuting his attack on Questions on Doctrine. He denied that the book made Christ’s heavenly sanctuary ministry unnecessary, but simply emphasized “the atoning sacrifice of Christ” in its rightful place in the process of atonement.[xxi] He pointed out that even Andreasen himself agreed in his Book of Hebrews that Christ “‘accomplished’” and “‘finished His work as victim and sacrifice.
......Andreasen fired off a letter to Figuhr accusing him of prevarication and requested formally a public hearing on the Adventist-evangelical conferences, activities of those involved with the conferences, and the content of Questions on Doctrine. Beginning with this letter, Andreasen for the first time broadened his focus beyond the issue of the atonement. He continued in his open letters of May 15 and June 4, charging Questions on Doctrine with removing or changing a number of the “pillars” of Adventist theology such as the teachings on the mark of the beast, the human nature of Christ, the investigative judgment, and Ellen White
.....Then in February 1959, Andreasen initiated a new series of missives called Letters to the Churches, with the help of a printer in Oregon named A. L. Hudson. Even before joining with Andreasen, he began protesting independently against “the head-long retreat” that the book was taking toward apostasy in the area of Christ’s human nature—predating Andreasen’s criticisms by half a year.[xxxvii]
Along with the nine-part series entitled “The Atonement,” the six-part Letters to the Churches became Andreasen’s lasting theological legacy from this era. The six documents released at various times throughout 1959 contained not only Andreasen’s key criticisms of Questions on Doctrine, but also accounts of his struggle against the book and the church during this time period. Letters to the Churches contained Andreasen’s treatises on Christ’s human nature, Ellen White, the atonement and narratives of his recent challenges against the General Conference in which he raised questions about the doctrinal integrity and moral authority of the leaders.[xxxviii] Except for the sections on Christ’s human nature, the content of the letters was not new. Most sections of the letters were condensed and polished versions of the “Atonement” series.
Andreasen’s key concern regarding the human nature of Christ was that the new book presented Christ’s incarnation as a man who was radically different from all other human beings, contrary to what he believed to be the orthodox Adventist position. Andreasen believed that Christ was born in the flesh with exactly the same set of tendencies to sin as all other human beings. Christ’s victory over sin in spite of his innate sinful tendencies was the cornerstone on which Andreasen had built his doctrine of the final atonement and the last generation. The last generation on earth would consist of a group of God’s people who would demonstrate to the universe that it is possible to keep the law of God and live a sinless life.
When Andreasen read the statement on p. 383 of Questions on Doctrine which indicated that Christ was “exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendant of Adam,”[xl] he interpreted the word “passion” as the sum total of “man’s emotions.” Working with this definition, Andreasen argued that to exempt a person from passions would be to take away “all temptations that incite men to action” which “results in a creature less than a man, a kind of no-man, a shadow man, a non-entity . . . .” Thus, Andreasen contended, to state that Christ was exempt from the passions of humankind would be to rob him of his true and complete humanity—and his last generation teachings of its theological basis.
Andreasen was determined to be heard, but his voice was being continually weakened by the deterioration of his health. He did manage to get at least two more documents out, but by early February, faced with a dramatic decline of his health, Andreasen sought to find peace and reconciliation with his church and asked for a visit by Figuhr. On February 16, Figuhr and Bietz visited Andreasen who was hospitalized at Glendale Sanitarium and Hospital. During this meeting the three men discussed frankly the issues of Andreasen’s activities of the previous five years, his suspended credentials and removal from the Yearbook, and financial arrangements for his wife after his death. Andreasen assured the visiting leaders that he did not desire to “engage in any activity which would harm the church” and showed regret over any “doubt and confusion” that his recent writings might have created. He further expressed his desire that his letters and pamphlets not be duplicated for distribution—a message directed especially to “offshoots” of Adventism.[lxviii] Through this conversation, the three men were reconciled. This meeting was especially important for Andreasen because even as he was so deeply agitated by Questions on Doctrine and the General Conference, he wanted to be reconciled to his church. His widow, Gladys, stated that Andreasen had “spent many nights sobbing his heart out” regarding being so estranged from the church. But after this meeting, she reported, he was able to die a “happy” man.[lxix] Three days after his meeting with Figuhr and Bietz, on February 19, Andreasen died at the age of 85.[lxx]
On March 1, 1962, the General Conferences Committee voted to revoke its former action to suspend Andreasen’s credentials. It also voted to put his name back on the list of the retired workers in the Yearbook...."
http://www.oakwood.edu/historyportal/Ejah/ASDAH/QOD and Andreasen.htm
For some more background on this issue check the following:
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2003/08/questions-on-doctrine-then-and-now.html
CHAPTER 4
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/
and here is another site:
Home :: Questions on Doctrine
You also may want to look at the Adventist Biblical Research site on the statements on the issue from Ellen G. White:
I. Deity and Nature of Christ
1.One With Eternal Father.—"Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, in purpose,—the only being that could enter into all the consels and purposes of God. 'His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The might God, The everlating Father, The Prince of peace' (Isa. 9:6). His 'goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting' (Micah 5:2)."—Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34.
2. Christ and Father of One Substance.—"The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, 'I and my Father are one.' The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes."—The Signs of the Times,
3. One in Power and Authority.—"Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father."—The Great Controversy, p. 495.
4. Equal With the Father.—"To save the transgressor of God's law, Christ, the one equal with the Father, came to live heaven before men, that they might learn to know what it is to have heaven in the heart. He illustrated what man must be to be worthy of the precious boon of the life that measures with the life of God."—Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 179.
5. Possesses God's Attributes.—"The only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of his Son, equal with himself, possessing the attributes of God. Though so highly exalted, Christ consented to assume human nature, that he might work in behalf of man and reconcile to God his disloyal subject. When man rebelled, Christ pleaded his merit in his behalf, and became man's substitute and surety. He undertook to combat the powers of darkness in man's behalf, and he prevailed, conquering the enemy of our souls, and presenting to man the cup of salvation."—The Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1892, p. 690.
6. God in Highest Sense.—"The world was made by him, 'and without him was not anything made that was made.' And without him was not anything made that was made.' If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. . . .
"There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible."The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. p. 8.
7. Eternal and Self-Existent.—"The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son, and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both."—Patriarch and Prophets, p. 36.
8. Christ Our Everlasting Father.—"However much a shepherd may love his sheep, he loves his sons and daughters more. Jesus is not only our shepherd; He is our 'everlasting Father.' And He says, 'I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father.' John 10:14, 15 R.V. What a statement is this!—the only-begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be 'the Man that is My fellow' (Zech. 13:7),—the communion between Him and the eternal God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth!"—The Desire of Ages, p. 483.
9. Life—Original, Unborrowed, Underived.—"Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jessu declared, 'I am the resurrection, and the life.' In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. 'He that hath the Son hath life.' 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life."—Ibid., p. 530.
10. The Self-Existent One.—"Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, 'whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.'"—Ibid., p. 469.
11. Redeemer Equal With God.—"The world's Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the authority of God. He declared that he had no existence separate from the Father. The authority by which he spoke, and wrought miracles, was expressly his own, yet he assures us that he and the Father are one." —The Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1890, p. 1.
12. Eternal, Self-existent, Uncreated.—"Jehovah, the eternal, self-existent, uncreated One, Himself the source and sustainer of all, is alone entitled to supreme reverence and worship."—Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 305.
13. Jehovah Is Name of Christ.—"Jehovah is the name given to Christ. 'Behold, God is my salvation,' writes the prophet Isaiah; 'I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; He also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. And in that day ye shall say, Praise the Lord, call upon His name, declare His doings among the people, make mention that His name is exalted,' 'In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee. Trust ye in the Lord forever; for in the Lord JEHOVAH is everlasting strength.'"—The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899, p. 2.
14. Jehovah Emmanuel Our Saviour.—"The heavenly gates are again to be lifted up, and with ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of holy ones, our Saviour will come forth as King of kings and Lord of lords. Jehovah Immanuel 'shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one.'"—Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, p. 160.
15. Jehovah Emmanuel Is Christ.—"This is the reward of all who follow Christ. Jehovah Emmanuel—He 'in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' in whom dwells 'all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:3, 9)—to be brought into sympathy with Him, to know Him, to possess Him, as the heart opens more and more to receive His attributes; to know His love and power, to possess the unsearchable riches of Christ, to comprehend more and more 'what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God,' (Eph. 3:18, 19)—'this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord.'"—Ibid., p. 57.
16. One With Father in Nature.—Before the entrance of sin among the angels: "Christ the Word, the only-begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings."—The Great Controversy, p. 493.
17. Rejection of Deity Fatal.— "If men reject the testimony of the inspired Scriptures concerning the deity of Christ, it is in vain to argue the point with them; for no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. 'The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' 1 Corinthians 2:14. None who hold this error can have a true conception of the character or the mission of Christ, or of the great plan of God for man's redemption."—Ibid., p. 524.....
(excerpted from Christ's Place in the Godhead
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Christ.htm)
The Bible clearly teaches that Christ was tempted just as other men are tempted - "in all points... like as we are." Such temptation must necessarily include the possibility of sinning; but Christ was without sin. There is no Bible support for the teaching that the mother of Christ, by an immaculate conception, was cut off from the sinful inheritance of the race, and therefore her divine Son, Christ was incapable of sinning.
Now lets look at Ephesians 2:
Ephesians 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Then compare Romans 8:
Romans 8:7King James Version (KJV)
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
We have to understand that though carnal, natural man cannot abolish his enmity against God, as it is a part of his nature. It is intertwined in every fiber of his being. But Jesus took upon Himself our nature of flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), "in all things... to be made like unto His brethren" (Heb. 2:17), "of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1: 3); He met and "abolished in His flesh the enmity," "the carnal mind" (Rom. 8:7). When Jesus bore the cross, He acknowledged the death sentence upon the sin nature. He took our nature, Adams fallen nature, and agreeing with the Father that this nature was fit only to die, He went voluntarily to the cross, and bore that fallen nature to its inevitable and necessary death. Christ took upon Himself the infirmities of "sinful flesh", but keeping Himself connected to the Father and using that power which waxed strong from the Holy Spirit, to every sin He died, every temptation He crucified, every selfish desire He denied Himself. He conquered sin in the flesh for us forever.
There is only one means of deliverance from this inherent law of sin. That is Christ. He took humanity upon Him. He conquered sin while in a body which had come under the hereditary law of sin. He now proposes to live that same sinless life in us and we in Him. His presence completely counteracts the power of the law of sin. But we have to choose to accept Christ in us.
We cannot allow the idea put forth by Augustine, influenced by his Manichaeistic pagan background which held to the idea of the balancing of all the cosmic opposites in the universe including good and bad, who sought to teach that the carnal mind and the spiritual mind co-existed in the life of the Christian. We find in Roman 7 that Paul clearly demonstrates that it's an either/or situation:
Romans 7:14-24King James Version (KJV)
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 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.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
The spiritual mind can exists only when the Spirit of God has subdued the carnal mind.
Here is a statement by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez on the Adventist church view of the nature of Christ :
"...the church's Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is useful because it summarizes that which the church holds to be biblical truth around the world. Let me quote from it some statements related to your question: "God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14]. . . . Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ [Heb. 2:14]. . . . He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God [Heb. 4:15]." In infinite love and mercy "God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21, Clear Word).
Those statements attest that, first, Jesus was divine; second, that He became what He was not, truly human; and, third, that He was without sin, even though He faced severe temptations. We can make those affirmations without hesitancy because that is what the Bible clearly teaches about God's Son...."
