The Human Nature of Christ - Bill Pinto
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2022
- Join Bill Pinto as he explores what the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy have to say about the human nature of Christ.
For more information visit:
www.earthenvessels.org.au
Or email us:
info@earthenvessels.org.au
Maybe all the Father wants of us, is to understand what happened at Gethsamane. To know what was given and what was on the line.
What a book! #DA
Praise be to the Father, who knows exactly what we go through, because of His Son's human nature.
the answer lies in preexistence
Where can I find the study about babes?
We are working on a book about that which will hopefully be on our website shortly
My dear brothers and sisters, God and His begotten Son bless you all. 🙂🙏🏻
May I kindly contribute my comment regarding the human nature of Christ? I will write in 2 parts. I wrote a lot so now I'm just sending it to you.
You see, we have selfish natures that have a bent towards evil. Did He have a selfish nature with a bent towards evil? No. We have inbred sin, we have inborn evil in our natural hearts. Did He have such? No. He never had to be born again. He never had to be converted. If He'd had inbred sin, He would have been thereby, sinful and He couldn't have been our sinless substitute. He can only be on the cross for our sins if He has none of His own - in any dimension of His being.
It's quite easy to take a position on the human nature of Christ that makes Him our sinless substitute. We say: "Well, He had the nature of Adam before the fall."
By the way - that's what a lot of
people believe - and it's also quite easy to establish that Christ is our sympathetic Exemplar, by simply stating that He had the nature of Adam after the fall. Right here is where our controversy as a people is. You can't imagine how many times people has been approached and asked:
"What do you believe? Do you believe that Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall, or the nature of Adam after the fall?"
When I'm asked that question, I'm
always inclined to respond one of two ways. The first and most simple is, "You know I need a third option." I need a third option, and praise God there is a third option. Or if I really want to confuse them, I'll say something like this: "Well, neither, or both, depending upon what aspect of the consequence of sin upon human nature you're talking about."
You see, if you're talking about depravity, He had the nature of Adam before the fall. If you're talking about deterioration, He had the nature of Adam after the fall. If you're talking about being infected with sin, He had the nature of Adam before the fall. If you're talking about affected by sin, He had the nature of Adam 4,000 years after the fall.
I insist that this "nature of Adam before the fall" and "after the fall," is very an artificial dichotomy. It's superficial - it doesn't really look at the whole picture. And our challenge is to have an understanding of the nature of Christ that allows Him to be both our sinless Substitute - and as far as
sinlessness is concerned - He had the nature of Adam before the fall, and our sympathetic Exemplar. As far as that dimension of His ministry is concerned, He had the nature of Adam after the fall.
But we must have an understanding that allows Him to be both - sinless Substitute and sympathetic Exemplar - at the same time.
You see if you go overboard in trying to make Him your sinless Substitute, and you make Him so holy other and so different from you, that He can't possibly identify with you - nor you with Him -then you've got a problem, don't you? What do you end up with? You end up with a plan of salvation where Jesus did it all. Just cloak yourself with His righteousness, and don't even worry about it. You're
home free - that's cheap grace. Are you following this?
But if in your efforts to make Him your sympathetic Exemplar, you go overboard and you emphasize His likeness to us, so that He's just like us, then inadvertently what do you do? You destroy His capacity to be our sinless Substitute, because you make Him sinful. And my dear friends, if you make Him sinful, then who's He on the cross for? ...Himself - and we're in big trouble.
We've got to have a sinless Savior. But the challenge, of course, is to have an
understanding that allows Him to be both, our sinless Substitute and our sympathetic Exemplar at the
same time.
"We may have the peace which passeth understanding, but it will cost us battles with the powers of darkness, struggles severe against selfishness and inbred sin." {Signs of the Times, March 17, 1887}
My, inbred sin. That is a most remarkable statement. Obviously my dear friends, there is a deeper dimension to sin than behavior or even character. Right? This is inbred sin. What, pray tell, is inbred sin? It's selfishness.
"Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance." {Historical Sketches, page 138}
That's inbred. Our children - by the law of heredity - are naturally, what? ...selfish. Was that baby Jesus naturally selfish? No, He was not. If He had been naturally selfish, He would have manifested selfish behavior until at least He was converted. But did He even have to be converted? Did He ever have to receive a new heart? No. No, absolutely not. He had no inbred sin.
You see all of us, as Adam's descendants, have a natural bent toward evil - a force, which unaided we cannot resist.
"The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent towards evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist." {Education, page 29}
All of the fallen sons and daughters of Adam have what? As a result of the eating of the tree of knowledge, what do we have? We have a bent towards
evil, a force, which unaided we cannot resist.
"He is a Brother in our infirmities, but NOT IN POSSESSING LIKE PASSIONS. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil." His nature, what my friends? "...recoiled from evil." "He endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin...He could have sinned, He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." {Faith I Live By 49}
Not only did He have no bent towards evil, His nature, recoiled from evil, He had a natural aversion to evil. An abhorrence of evil, He was absolutely sinless. Evil was excruciatingly painful and incredibly offensive to Him. Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.
So again, how can it be that He, with a nature that recoils from evil, and we with natures that have a bent towards evil; how can it possibly be that He is tempted in all things like as we are? {Heb 4:15}
Do you see our challenge here? ...and my dear friends, I am addressing this issue, precisely because the primary motivation for those who insist that Christ have a nature identical to ours in every way - with all of the sinful propensities that we have - is because they think that it's essential for Him to have such, if He is to be tempted in all things like as we are.
But I want to share with you an
understanding that will allow us to see how Christ can be tempted in all things like as we are, and still be absolutely sinless without any bent or propensity to evil whatsoever. Okay? That's what we're trying to do.
Now, Jesus Christ is the second Adam. {1 Cor 15:45-47} What does that mean? Listen.
"Christ is called the second Adam.
In purity and holiness, connected with God, and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure." {Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898}
Question friends: did Adam begin with a sinful, depraved nature? No. The second Adam, He began where the first Adam began, and He passes over the ground where Adam fell. Are you
following this?
Now yes, the second Adam had all of the deterioration of 4,000 years. He had to have that, because He must not only past the test that Adam failed to pass, but He also must be an example to poor fallen mortals, and show them how they - by His grace - can overcome their daily tests and
temptations. That's why He's got to not only be, as far as depravity and
sinlessness is concerned, like Adam before the fall; He's got to be, as far as deterioration and weakness
is concerned, like Adam after the fall. Are you with me on this?
But there is something very significant about the test that Christ goes to the wilderness to experience. How many times is Christ tempted in the wilderness? Three times. Well, is that a coincidence? How many temptations are there? Three... and He must be
"tempted in all points," what? "...like as we are." {Heb 4:15}
What do you suppose those three
temptations are? What do you suppose they just might be?
Lust of the flesh {1 Jn 2:16} - how was He tempted there, in that area? Turn stones to bread {Mat 4:3}; satisfy your incredibly acute and intense appetite. Do you see that? Then, where does the devil take Him? Verse 5: "Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, 'All
this authority I will give You and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.'"
He is giving Him a panorama view of the world, all the Kingdoms of the world. What are we dealing with, here? The lust of the eyes, and then the last temptation, what is it? He takes Him to the pinnacle of the temple, verse 9: and says, "If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down from here. For it is written 'He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you...'" What's this? This is the pride of life that leads to presumption.
"Christ endured these three great
leading temptations, and overcame in behalf of man, working out for him a righteous character, because He knew man could not do this of himself. He knew that upon these THREE POINTS Satan was to assail the race. He had overcome Adam, and he designed to carry forward his work till he completed the ruin of man. Christ
entered the field in man's behalf to conquer Satan for him because He saw that man could not overcome on his own account. Christ prepared the way for the ransom of man by His own life of suffering, self-denial, and self-sacrifice, and by His humiliation and final death. He brought help to
man that he might, by following Christ's example, overcome on his own account, as Christ has overcome for him." {3T 372}
That's so profound and insightful; I had to share it with you.
Now my dear friends, if you and I had been tempted to turn stones to bread, would that even have been a temptation to us? No. Why? We can't do it. Was it a temptation to Christ? Was it? Absolutely. Why? Because He could do it.
You know, bless your hearts, those who insist that Christ was tempted just like we are, it seems like if they would just take a look at Christ's temptation, they would have to recognize that, no, there's something radically different about His temptations.
I've never been tempted to turn stones to bread, nor have you! But Christ was. Now, that wouldn't have been a temptation to us, because we couldn't have done it. Was it a temptation to Christ? Yes. Why? Because He could have done it. With one word - the same word that brought this world into existence - He could have turned every stone on the desert floor into a fresh-baked loaf. Every stone into a fresh-baked loaf, easily... and satisfied His hunger and proved that He was not who the enemy was insinuating He was, in the process - proved that He was the Son of God.
And if you don't think that was a temptation, please think again. My dear friends, that was an overwhelmingly powerful temptation.
And it was going through that temptation that made it possible for Him to sympathize and identify with any temptation that any fallen human being has to experience, in the realm of the lust of the flesh.
Please, understand that though Christ was powerfully tempted in that area of appetite, it was not a sinful appetite that was being appealed to, was it? Was it sinful for Christ to be hungry after going without food for forty days and forty nights? Was it? No, absolutely sinless.
But was it a powerful appetite? Oh, it was powerful. Was it as powerful as the depraved, perverted appetites that you and I have to contend with? Yes, yes! So can anyone say, follow now, can anyone say who's having to
contend with a depraved, perverted appetite in some area of the lusts of the flesh, can anyone say:
"Christ doesn't know what it's like. He can't sympathize with me." Can you say that? No, you can't. Why can Christ sympathize with you though? Because He has had your exact same temptation? No. But because He's had a temptation in the area of the lust of the flesh, that's fully equal to anything you will have to contend with in the lust of the flesh. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain?
You see my dear friends, I've got to make this just very clear. There are those who insist that "tempted in all things like as we are" {Heb 4:15} means that Christ had every single temptation that we have. In fact, there are those who go so far as to say, for instance... for example... this is just one: that Christ had the temptations of a homosexual.
And they, who say that, are well intentioned because they think that in order for a homosexual to be able to know that Christ understands what he's going through, has to be assured that Christ actually had those temptations.
My dear friends, please understand that we don't have to do that. We don't have to go there; and God forbid
that we do.
Because you see, if Christ has every temptation that we have, we have not only got to give Him a depraved nature, we've got to give Him as depraved a nature as anyone has ever had or could ever have. Are you following this?
I don't even have the temptations of a homosexual and I'm a fallen man. I don't understand that. I realize that there are those who have such temptations, but I don't have them.
Christ's capacity to sympathize with us, is not dependant upon His having had to handle every single one of our
temptations. I mean, aren't there temptations that are unique to women, for instance? Why, of course. And if a woman thinks that Christ has to have had all of her temptations while being a man, then she's got to come to the conclusion that He can't possibly identify with her. Are you following the reasoning here? But can Christ identify with anyone's temptation in any of those three areas? Yes! Why? Because He had specific temptations? No, but because He had a temptation that makes Him fully sympathetic in
everyone of those three areas; and it was fully equal in intensity to anything you and I will ever have to
meet.
Can a heroin addict say Christ doesn't know what it's like? No. Why? Because that comes under the heading "lust of the flesh," and Christ had a temptation in the area of the lust of the flesh that was fully as powerful as that, of a heroin addict's.
Did He have to be a heroin addict to be able to sympathize with a heroin addict? No. Did He have to be a heroin addict in order to be a valid example to a heroin addict? No.
Do you see how we can have an understanding that allows Christ to be perfectly sympathetic while perfectly sinless at the same time? Do you see that my dear friends? That's our
challenge; and that's what Christ was. He was perfectly sinless yet perfectly sympathetic at the same
time. Praise God for such a Savior. 🙂🙏🏻
Scripture does not present our Lord with two natures. The Father did his miracles through Jesus. That was what Jesus said. In fact, he could not glorify himself with his own miraculous attributes. But he was deity always in his identity as the Logos made into a man. Amen? Chalcedon gave us a Jesus who did not know the time of his return in his human nature only! That is Nestorian.
A warning that God wants me to deliver to the people in these last days. We are coming closer to the second coming of King Jesus. He who has an ear, let Him hear what the Spirit of God says. From Isaiah 13:6-16 (NKJV):
6 Wail, for the day of the Lord is at hand!
It will come as destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore all hands will be limp,
Every man’s heart will melt,
8 And they will be afraid.
Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them;
They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth;
They will be amazed at one another;
Their faces will be like flames.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,
To lay the land desolate;
And He will destroy its sinners from it.
10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not give their light;
The sun will be darkened in its going forth,
And the moon will not cause its light to shine.
11 “I will punish the world for its evil,
And the wicked for their iniquity;
I will halt the arrogance of the proud,
And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold,
A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens,
And the earth will move out of her place,
In the wrath of the Lord of hosts
And in the day of His fierce anger.
14 It shall be as the hunted gazelle,
And as a sheep that no man takes up;
Every man will turn to his own people,
And everyone will flee to his own land.
15 Everyone who is found will be thrust through,
And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword
16 Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.
Maranatha! Come my King Jesus, come! All praises, honor and glory belong to You alone! Amen!
Isaiah 40:25 KJV
[25] To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
I think it is a serious error to characterize Christ, the Holy One, as a sinner. Jesus was superior to man before the fall (2SP 9.3). The word “likeness” (homoioma) in Romans 8:3 does not mean “the same as”. For example, man was made in the “likeness” of God (Gen. 1:26), but man is not “the same as” God. The body of Christ was prepared for Him by the Father (Heb. 10:5) to be the perfect offering and could have no blemish of sin lest it be a lame offering. Christ “put on” only the “likeness” of our sinful flesh with all its imperfections, but it was not “the same as” sinful flesh, and did not make Him sinful. Christ’s holy nature remained unchanged. Therefore it cannot be said of Him that He had a fallen sinful nature. One cannot be holy if the character is corrupt; this makes no more sense than the trinity doctrine. The following statements from the SOP affirm this important truth:
By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. 16MR 116.3
There should not be the faintest misgivings in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ. 16MR 117.1
Had there been the least taint of sin in Christ, Satan would have bruised His head. 16MR 119.3
But it was not the absence of external honor and riches and glory that caused the Jews to reject Jesus. The Sun of Righteousness shining amid the moral darkness in such distinct rays revealed the contrast between sin and holiness, purity and defilement, and such light was not welcome to them. Christ was not such an one as themselves. 16MR 120.3
Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. 5BC 1128.4
Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, …fallen but not corrupted,… and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. CTr 208.7
Man could not atone for man. His sinful, fallen condition would constitute him an imperfect offering, an atoning sacrifice of less value than Adam before his fall. God made man perfect and upright, and after his transgression there could be no sacrifice acceptable to God for him, unless the offering made should in value be superior to man as he was in his state of perfection and innocency. . 2SP 9.1-2SP 9.3
To begin we have to be clear upon what sin is. According to the source of inspiration you claim to believe and have quoted from, there is only one definition of what sin is:
"The *only* definition for sin that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law." [ST MAR.03,1890]
Sin is not nature. Roman Catholics believe it is, and therefore make Mary an immaculate conception in order to give Christ a different nature than us, as she was His mother and the source of His humanity. But since not is not sin to be born with a sinful nature, so we do not need to make Mary immaculate.
The Spirit of God went to great lengths to clear up the problem that men were to have until the end of regarding what nature Christ was born with. Paul wrote plainly here:
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as *the children* are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
So according to this plain verse, Christ partook of the same flesh and blood as the children. He was born the same as all human children are, according to His human nature.
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
'committeth' is an action. You cannot be a sinner unless you have 'committed' (action) something. If a baby is a sinner, what sin did it commit?
But with the correct understanding of what sin is, we can easily understand how Jesus could partake of our nature, yet not perform the action that sin is. You quoted:
"By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. 16MR 116.3"
He did not participate in sin, because he never committed a sin! He had the same fallen nature we had, but never once yielded to it.
@@earthenvesselsministry … Thank you, but sin goes deeper than the act committed. It proceeds from the heart. Matthew 5:28 KJV
[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Here Jesus proved that the law is transgressed, sin committed, before the act.
Please notice the word 'committed' in there verse you shared. Committed is a verb, it indicates an action. In this case the action was not physical, but mental.
Say Fred and Henry see a woman on the street. Both men have a fallen human nature that is inclined to sin. Fred gives in to the temptation and lusts after the woman, but Henry resists and looks away. Both of those men performed an action, not of the body, but of the will. Fred exercised his will to lust, Henry exercised his will to obey Christ's admonition given in Matt 5:28 and was strengthened by God's grace.
Fred yielded to the devil and committed adultery in his heart, Henry yielded to Christ and did not commit adultery in his heart.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that *to whom ye yield yourselves* servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; *whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?*
It is about how we exercise our will, not how we were born. This is why Christ could be born like us, but never sin. He never once yielded to sin.
@@earthenvesselsministry … Thank you again. But, with respect, I will make these three points:
1. You are teaching a distorted view of the nature of Christ by making our Lord out to be some kind of sinless sinner, as if He was like unto an alcoholic who never took a drink. This would mean that He was only half holy, which is impossible. And if it were possible that that were the case, Jesus Himself would have been in need of a savior.
2. Contrary to your belief, how we are born has everything to do with our salvation. It is in fact why we need salvation. Why else must we be born again? A man born with a corrupt sinful nature could, if it were possible, live his entire life without sinning and still die lost without Christ.
3. Actions are begotten by thoughts, thoughts are begotten by the heart/nature. Only a corrupt sinful heart, such as we are born with, can beget sinful thoughts. The heart/nature of Jesus never once begat a sinful thought according to Sister White. That is because He was holy, unfallen, uncorrupted (see Luke 1:35; Acts 2:27, 3:14).
So as not to repeat myself, I invite you to re-read my first comment which you are conveniently ignoring. I would also like to invite you to listen to this 16 part series titled “The Incarnation” presented by Pastor Alex Ortega: ruclips.net/p/PL8G4tkUJ5MH-0Mshvvp6jRujIoA3Omd06
Further reading:
Selected Messages, book 3, chapter 19, The Incarnation
Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, pages 9-11, 58, 59
On the subject of Catholic beliefs, I might add that you are conflating two separate concepts-original sin and original guilt.
Original Sin vs. Original Guilt-
Original Guilt: Adam’s children are born bearing his guilt. FALSE
Original Sin: The Catholic belief that sin originated in Adam is false. Sin did not originate in Adam but in Satan. But it is true that because Adam did sin as the result of Satan’s mischief, his children are born bearing his fallen sinful nature.
Jesus Christ is God The Son.
Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God.