Suzi.....read the book - the nature of Christ by Roy Adams or the humanity of Christ by Woodrow Whidden and you will see that Pr. Dwayne Lemon is wrong on his view of the nature of Christ...here is a quote ---Christ vanquished satan in the same nature over which in Eden satan obtained the victory...also found in vol.7a SDABC page 924 on hebrews 2...also Vol 5.SDABC page 1128 he did not take our sinful propensities as Adams posterity did.......I have studied this for 40 years and I also have a degree in SDA theology
Not “May”, God will definitely help you “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us”. May YOU cooperate with Him and have implicit faith in Him.
Elizabeth - the view presented here by Dwayne is held by about 5% of the church - he is wrong in his understanding - it is easy to convince someone of something they do not understand - Jesus did not have our sinful nature - he was affected by sin but not infected...this false view will give you a focus on yourself rather than Christ for righteousness and salvation....read DA. 311...he recoiled from sin whereas we are attracted to sin....Steps to Christ p.19 if my memory is correct..also 202 of 2T and 1128 of vol 5. SDABC
Valerie - the view presented here by Pr. Dwayne is wrong - Jesus had the sinless nature of Adam before the fall yet he was weakened by inherited infirmities - He was weakened in physical strenght - mental power and moral worth DA.117 also page 49...PSalm 40.8 says he delighted to do God's will whereas Romans 8.7 says we have a carnal mind /nature that is at enmity with God - 5% of church leaders have Dwaynes view...Walter Veith has my view as Did Morris Venden and Roy Adams and Woodrow Whidden etc. and LeRoy Froom
David---Dwayne Lemon is wrong on the nature of Christ and so are you if you agree with him...read Roy Adams - the nature of Christ...or woodrow Widden the humanity of Christ
I appreciate your concern but you have not judged righteously. You must have listened to this with the intention to look for error. I’m not concerned with who but what and the Holy Spirit does not lead into error. No mouth piece is above error. No channel is not corrupt. The truths needed to be highlighted for me where I’m at were praise Father!
I find it strange the first book you mention is available on Amazon, though it was published 1994. Here is a review of this $130 dollar book you suggested. “I expected a dissertation on the subject of the Nature of Christ but was treated instead to a verbal attack against certain other authors that believe differently from this one. Disappointed.” Which is in line with your comment to me. Completely void of any of the fruits of the spirit. The truth will alway have relentless Christ-less opposition.
Let me suggest the Bible, which is the best book of all, and The Sonship of Christ by Ty Gibson, much cheaper 😅. Sad to see heated disagreement but happy to see this topic come up because it is a beautiful topic and a very important one
@@paolaortega8189 ..........You should have presented Ty's view - but if my memory is correct he believes in the pre-fall nature of Christ with innocent infirmities but not sinful propensities as does James Rafferty...I think, as it has been many years since I have read their views...but that is the correct view as Walter Veith holds it also - but amazingly Doug Batchelor has it wrong....but the bible isn't as clear on it as I would like unless you do much deeper study....So, Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall - we have our natures from after the fall
So many commenting on the nature of Christ have no clue about it. Some are very logical, some skeptical, some paranoid, some critical, but only a few have that peace in the heart which passed all understanding.
My dear brother Lemon. Thank you for your sermon and sermons. They are a great blessing to me. Thank God for everything. Now, may I kindly contribute my comment regarding the nature of Christ? 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.
Thank you for finally acknowledging God will have a sinless group in the last days. As to it meaning nothing. That is a terrible comment. Thankfully you are no authority to make such a statement. God put it there for a reason. Do you know what the reason is?
Well, at least one person is willing to read Roy Adams on the nature of christ - so my efforts have not been in vain....and a 2nd book would be - the humanity of Christ by Woodrow Whidden - as he looks at that topic via the writings of EGW
@@jkkjlemon ......if it profited you you'd make time---we always have time for things that profit us....but you should think of others and truth itself.
Upon seeing the comments on this video it is painfully clear what has been done… He that answereth a matter before he heareth it , it is folly and shame unto him.Proverbs 18:13 This made Satan very angry.
When the truth is presented to the people, it seems to many to be consistent and right; and if the enemy and his followers did not come in and oppose it by every means in their power, where there are now ten who take hold of it, there would be thousands. RH March 9, 1886, par. 6
The only way in which God could deal with Satan was to take a straightforward course; and this is the course that his children must pursue in the great controversy which is still being carried on in the world between truth and error, light and darkness. Those who hold the truth in righteousness will be fair; they can afford to be fair. But those who oppose the truth lack Bible evidence to sustain their position. Therefore they are not fair, but are constantly warring against the things that are for their good. RH March 9, 1886, par. 7
Genesis 1.26 says we were made in the likeness of God but not identically in all points - same with Christ . he was made like man but not completely - hewas not sinful as we are
JOHN THE BAPTIST.....had the same faults and weaknesses common to humanity DA . 179..........he had a moment as we all do to be transformed through his willingness to be converted to Christ. He was not sinless form the womb - he was only filled with the Spirit --- but spirit filled people sin and need to make a choice
@@jkkjlemon ..............being filled with the holy spirit does not exclude us from also having a carnal nature which Jesus did not have Jesus was born into a loving parental home - he was not subjected to parental sexual abuse - he was not malnourished so that it affected his mental health development - he had a high IQ....he was not born with physical or mental health issues like down syndrome or no limbs - or fetal alcohol syndrome...not born into a satanic cult - so to say Christ was not different or had no advantages in some ways is wrong....as I said to you - state what you think are the ramifications of each view....because that is the central issue and shows clearly where the wrong view takes you.
Look up the word propensity or propensities in Ellen White's writings. You will find that we have sinful propensities whereas Jesus Christ did not have sinful propensity. This is not in disagreement with anything brother lemon has said. This is just an aspect of his sinful nature it discussion
the reason Paul uses the word -likeness- is to refute the heresy of Docetism....the view here presented is wrong...From John Stott on Romans page 219...
Dwayne--- read a 9 page article from Andrews University on the nature of Christ - go to ellen white on the human nature of christ / andrews university......(no spaces) .....it takes in three views..
If You read EGW you will know she has many definitions for the same word or phrase....and she did make statements where her focus was on the motives of people rather than the true facts of the events...so if Dwayne knew the different interpretations for the phrase sinful nature he would not be so dogmatic and would reevaluate his view
The question remains, please tell me what you understand about the group who comes to a place of victory over sin in the last days. You mentioned it so I’m asking what do you understand about this group. Thanks
@@jkkjlemon ........if there is a group that ceases to sin before Christ returns it will be the result of God giving them the victory - that would be a gift from heaven but it is not the requirement for heaven ...for the past 2000 years people have been talking about the last sinless generation but we are not there yet..so it should not be the focus--- the focus should be prayer - repentance - confession - perseverance and the right exercise of the will...but perfection should not be seen or introduced as an ultimatum .....I believe in the possibility of victory but I also believe in forgiveness...if victory is the ticket for salvation where would you and I be if we died tonight. There have been days I've been fit for translation and other days I am too bad for hell---can you relate?...But we must not burden the members with perfectionism but with a loving relationship. It is love that gives the victory. And having the wrong view on the nature of Christ creates this imbalance in justification vs sanctification. We are told that some of those who cannot endure the last days will be laid to rest...I am looking to Christ and not the demand for victory. As we are told in Steps to Christ - we shall often have to bow down and weep at the feet of Jesus because of our short comings and mistakes "BUT" even if we are overcome by the enemy we are not cast off. That is the grace of the Gospel.
@@DavidKing-qd3sp it’s not “IF” there will be a group that will have victory over sin. There WILL be a group. I don’t have any problem with what you’ve explained about forgiveness, mercy, and grace. Fully agreed, and IT IS WHAT I TEACH. However, I’m asking what is the purpose of God having this group of people who have actual victory over sin. This is key to our discussion and this is the first time I’m hearing you acknowledge it. Now I want to hone in on it. What is Gods purpose of establishing such a group as described in Revelation 14:12? This is my question to you.
@@jkkjlemon ...........As SDA's, many teach a sinless last generation - but we have no record of that ever happening in the past- not even in the life of Paul, Moses, or any SDA founder...and if it happens in the future it will be through a relationship with God and His spirit within us - now whichever view we take regarding the nature of Christ, we are all striving for a victorious life ...so it is not dependent upon a proper understanding of the nature of Christ, because victory is not dependent upon knowing what nature Jesus had - but it is in knowing with God all things are possible through his Spirit and Grace in us. And I will say, having the prelapsarian view will not hinder one from victory unless you make excuses for sin, which no mature Christian does. But having the postlapsarian view may hinder one's salvation because it can make one focus on their deficiencies and live a life of guilt and uncertainty, ending in apostasy. So, if the last generation lives above sin it will be to demonstrate God's power in our lives, through the resurrected Christ, via the presence of the holy spirit in our lives. It will not be to demonstrate what a sinful Christ could do, therefore so can we....it will be to demonstrate that an atoning Christ with all of its ramifications could empower us to live above sin....and totally redeem us from the power of sin. We sometimes hold to collective views that are later to be found imbalanced so I am in the progressive camp of being open-minded. If it is not clearly stated then I make no dogmatic statements. But one thing is for sure, victory over willful sin is possible according to scripture, but I don't know if that will happen until there is first a healing process taking place in the lives of Christians, because we are all so damaged - both spiritually and psychologically. So, my answer to your question of God's purpose in establishing an obedient group as in Rev. 12...is to manifest - his love - his grace - his power. And all to the glory and praise of Christ. It is not the narrow focus of what sinful man could do - but the glorious view of what God did through Christ, because the act of salvation involved not just man but the unfallen worlds also. As you know, error can only produce confusion and further the devil's plan, so we must be humble enough to second guess ourselves - for people's live's / salvation hang in the balance, and it is not about us. So, I hope you will be open minded enough to read Adams and Whidden. I have noticed others have spoken to you with the same concerns, so that should make one reconsider their position. God speaks to us through his word - his spirt and his people...so we are not your enemy but Brother's in Christ. And I hope you make time to answer my question - what - to seal the vision and prophecy means to you.
@@jkkjlemon .............As I understand the Great Controversy - it is about the character of God - and as we read the 5 volume set of the Conflict of the Ages series it starts and ends with the same 3 words - God is Love... So within the events and history of the bible this theme is the one that is seeking expression and acknowledgement. So, God's restoration of sinful man to a state of sinless man is an expression of His character of love. It also demonstrates his power and Grace. So, to me, in essence, this is the purpose of God in restoring or redeeming man to his image ...He is the Father of Love. Our redemption from sin means a restoration to His law...but we do not put on immortality nor incorruption until the day of the resurrection ...1st Cor. 15: 52 - 53.....until then our characters will undergo a change but not our nature...we will have a sinful nature until the resurrection.
Genesis 1:26 says - let us make man in our likeness or image - but man is not identical to God - he is only like God in some aspects...so Jesus was made like sinful man but not completely - he was not born with a nature of sin or to sin as we are - he was born with innocent infirmities but not sinful propensities - Dwayne is Wrong...even Dr. Jack Sequeira says that and Dr. Roy Adams and Dr. Woodrow Whidden - so read their books on the nature of Christ....Adam never experienced - hunger - sleep deprivation - or depression but Christ did and these things added to the weight of Christ's temptations they are innocent infirmities but not sinful in themselves...
When Adam was born sinless - he was born human also....so christ had Adams pre-fall nature as a sinless human......if christ was 100% like us there would be no reason to say it -as that would be an obvious conclusion...but he was not altogether human as ourselves 5 SDABC page 1128....he did not inherit the sinful propensities from Adam - but we did....so the word likeness supports the view that he was not 100% like us...he had innocent infirmities not sinful propensities............read Roy Adams - the nature of Christ....Dennis Priebe is wrong as is Doug Batchelor..as is Pr. Dwayne
Dwayne...REV. 14. 12 is not about those who will be sinless in the last days - it may be about those who do not worship the beast and keep the Sabbath - so let's not be dogmatic without research into the context....as 13 was a discussion on the worship of the beast...it is not a discussion on sinless living or perfection - unless we read that into it
You said there will be a group of people who reach sinlessness but it meant nothing. If it’s not those in Revelation 14:12, then who is it? These are your words
@@jkkjlemon ........Those are not my words - EGW says - those who are living victoriously will not be conscious of it - so we will never know from that context...and it does not matter becuase we are doing our best and no command will change our experience - we do our best...he makes up for the rest
@@jkkjlemon ..........it means nothing because they have already sinned - Christ never sinned - that was my context - REV. 14.12 may not be saying what you impose on the text - the context is the worship of the beast and obedience to the Sabbath ---it is not about sinlessness or nature....
the wrong view on the nature of christ is presented here by Dwayne Lemon...Christ came as Adam was before the fall - except he came weaker than Adam but not sinful
Dwayne - did you read my response to the idea of Christ being hungry, tired, thirsty, etc. Did you understand my point. plus...you say Christ had to be tempted like us - yet EGW says he was tempted beyond what any man will encounter - did you experience the cross - the 78 lashes - the thorns - the nails in hands and feet - the separation form God because of becoming sin and enduring his wrath...so to say Jesus has to be tempted like us is -asinine - 10 and 11..he went beyond human comprehension and sweat blood...have you done that in your trials - so, Christ had to repress his divine nature as we have to repress our sinful nature - the principles of temptation are the same for Christ and us...but he came sinless...Amazing how you cannot grasp this concept I found another author I read Frank Philips and he agrees with me---read his book - his robe or mine and check the appendix for chapter on nature of christ
Hebrews 4:14 states clearly He was tempted like us. True He was tempted beyond us. But nevertheless, He was tempted like us as well. This is my focus. Frank Phillips book His robe or mine, is an atrocity to the truth of the nature of Christ. You have embraced the new theology and this is our difference. ML Andreasan addressed this with the book Question on Doctrines. This is an old issue in our church and we are not going to agree. The texts, and quotes you have shared are not sustainable to your argument.
@@jkkjlemon .......Do you think God has forsaken his people on this topic - or any other - and left it to a few independent's who see themselves as a remnant within the remnant DA. 300....The Lord can do nothing towards the recovery of man until convinced of his own weakness...and stripped of all self sufficiency ....he yields himself to the control of God.....YOU cannot do this because you think victory is in your will-power but it is in Christ by faith alone... I tried to help you - God spoke to you - but you heard it as the voice of an enemy...and this deafness and ignorance will shape your spiritual and intellectual life. But I wish you the best....When you become humble and wiser - read Adams and Whidden
The spirit in which you come to the investigation of the Scriptures will determine the character of the assistant at your side. Angels from the world of light will be with those who in humility of heart seek for divine guidance. But if the Bible is opened with irreverence, with A feeling of SELF-SUFFICIENCY, if the HEART IS FILLED WITH PREJUDICE, SATAN IS BESIDE YOU, and he will set the plain statements of God’s word in a PERVERTED LIGHT. - {TM 108.1} Romans 8:3,4 shows Jesus partook of our sinful nature. Romans 1:3 shows Jesus had the same nature King David had. (Flesh in the Greek is nature) Thankfully, He still didn’t sin. We have hope as well that through the in dwelling Christ, we too can have victory over sin. Hebrews 4:15,16
@@jkkjlemon .........Romans 8.3-4... what was it the law could not do - it could not justify the sinner...because he could not keep it - so if the law could not produce righteous obedience in the flesh and Christ could - then he must have had a different flesh....so now that he gives us the same spirit he had we can also live above sin but show me one person who has that experience...not one. Rom. 1:3 Christ came from the seed of David but God was his father - so no negative inheritance. The Great Controversy is between Christ and Satan - not Satan and Man...Christ had to prove God's law could be kept by Adam yet he proved it by being even weaker than Adam through inherited infirmities, yet in Adam's pre-fall sinless nature. You would educate yourself if you just read those 2 books as I have read several books. The head of the theology department where I attended was a noted Genius and even he had the prelapsarian view. Only 5% of leaders have your view.
@@jkkjlemon You quoted Mt. 26.36-46 to show Christ had a nature that wants to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants to do ....This event had absolutely nothing to do with His nature - it had more to do with common sense and the realization of the pain of crucifixion and then the abandonment by God...as He became sin for the human race and took the full weight of God's wrath on sin. so, you show a lack of understanding or a Will that just wants to prove its point regardless of context.
@@jkkjlemon ........Heppenstall...page 51...our high priest ....all men begin life with this alienation from God which they inherit from Adam...52 all men are born without God in this world
@@jkkjlemon ..........let me quote Dr. Jack Sequeira..."We must never teach that Christ had a sinful nature , that would be heresy." This is from = the truth as it is in Jesus page 7.( Romans 8: 1-3)...So Dwayne - he was similar but not identical - read Adams and Whidden
@@jkkjlemon ........Genesis 1: 26 says - let us make man in our likeness or image - that does not mean we are identical to God - but we are similar - so Dwayne - please keep studying this topic as one day you may see the truth - Christ had the innocent infirmities of sinful man but not his sinful propensities as we do
@@jkkjlemon .......Genesis 1.26 says let us make man in our likeness or image but there was a difference between God and Man - so Dwayne as I quoted to you Dr. Jack Sequeira - he said to say Christ was sinful at birth as we are is heresy...but maybe one day you'll see the truth...
at 104....he tries to prove christ had a sinful nature by using the phrase - in the likeness of sinful flesh....but the text also says - what the law could not do because of the weakness of human fleash - so if christ was just like us he would not be able to keep the law...sinful nature does not equal sinful acts of sin but it does suggest a sinful state of being...which only guarantees that man would sin right out of the womb psalm 58.3...Amazing Pr. Dwayne is unable to reason through this topic.
Incorrect, he could keep the law because while HE DID have a sinful nature, He ALSO had the divine nature! This is why understanding the nature of Christ is so important! Because He did it, WE can do it. This is why there WILL be a people in the last days that KEEP, (notice they are not TRYING to keep) the commandments of God. Revelation 14:12 There will be a people who will ACTUALLY live lives ABOVE sin though tempted severely. For anyone to teach any other gospel. Let him be accursed Galatians 1:9
@@jkkjlemon Are you living above sin...and you are the one teaching another Gospel so maybe you should be accursed. One day you will see that you are wrong....you seem to be rigid in your reasoning - black or white...no gray. Talk with Ivor Myers see what he says and let me know.....you will waste your energy trying to do what God will do for you - that is your probelm looking to the law and self
@@jkkjlemon ............As I have said before - an intellectual is one who is given to introspection and self-criticism...And - A true scholar is one who rejoices when he's been shown to be wrong. I have noticed that others have made the same charges against you, so I am not alone. But Dwayne, tell me, how could the holy spirit ever reach you to correct you or guide you....if we were talking about the Sabbath and you rejected my views I would understand - but this doctrine is not as clear as any other teaching. I believe in the possibility of victory over sin but I also believe in the unfallen nature of Christ...one offers victory through Grace the other demands victory through Grace - in my view. That may be the biggest difference and a stumbling block to many sensitive souls - because others are not educated or gifted in these issues and we can do much harm - in Christ's name!
Dwayne......take a humble attitude - read Roy Adams as others have suggested - be open minded...and if you still disagree after reading the book, at least you were open minded - but God may surprise you as you may see things from a different perspective. And also look at Woodrow Whidden's book - a look at the humanity of Christ through the writings of EGW. You have much to gain and nothing to lose.
ANOTHER TOPIC ....Dwayne - please give me your view on the phrase in Daniel 9.24 ...to seal the vision and the prophecy ...this has always been a challenge
50 minutes....the wicked goes astray as soon as they are born psalm 58.3 Romans 8.7 says the carnal mind is at enmity with God yet jesus was born with a nature to love and obey psalm 40.8.......we are bor in a sinful state before we act out...Dwayne is confused
The entirety of the sermon speaks for itself. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (FOR THE CHILDREN BEING NOT YET BORN, NEITHER HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) {Romans 9:10,11} Children are not born sinners and therefore guilty. Our natures without intervention will practice sin, but when we’re born again, we don’t have to and by Gods grace won’t sin against Him. 1 John 3:9 Praise God This is the real gospel
@@jkkjlemon .........The main question for this topic has to be answered and that question is - what difference does it make in a Christian's life because both views cannot be right and there must be negative consequences for the wrong view...So answer that question for me from your understanding
@@jkkjlemon .........We are born with a sinful nature that seeks sinful behaviors...Christ had the law written in his nature and his nature recoiled from sin...Children stand guilty before God not for their sins but for their nature....if a child grows up without sinning and dies he is not saved because of his sinlessness - he is condemned because of his sinful nature and needs to be born again... And your Romans 9 quote is about election to service so I am not sure of the point you are making
@@DavidKing-qd3sp completely disagree with you. Your statement is not Biblical and Roman Catholic to the core. The purpose of the Romans 9 quote is to show that children are neither innocent or guilty at birth. Therefore we are not born guilty ie: sinners. It’s a Roman Catholic teaching. Not a Protestant teaching
@@jkkjlemon ........Romans 9 is about election to service it is not a discussion on the nature of Christ or sinfulness of children .....I encourage you to take another look at it..........And though we reject Catholicism they were not wrong on every point. I cannot see how you can reject the simple and plain quote that says - Christ vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory ..7A.924 I would be curious to know how holding my view would affect you. I have a friend who is the Conference president and he once had your view. Dwayne - it would not kill you to read 2 books - You always speak about being open to God's guidance but you do not show flexibility here. I have focused on this topic close to 50 years. Even the Ministry Magazine has several articles on this which I read years ago along with about 6 books and many conversations, so you are in the minority.
DA . Page 311 - He became flesh even as we are - he was hungry - thirsty - tired - he was sustained by food - refreshed by sleep...he shared the lot of man.......This is what is meant by Romans 8: 3 - he became flesh but not sinful flesh as we are at birth...Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall...but he was born with and subjected too, infirmities that were the result of Adams sin, but they were not sinful in themselves. Adam did not know by experience - hunger - thirst - tiredness . depression - he did not need sleep - So, Christ came weaker than Adam, as is stated in DA. 117...he was weaker in physical strength - mental power and moral worth. Christ possessed or was weakened by the infirmities of sin BUT not sin in itself.. And Dwayne does not have the insight to see this difference and he is doing much damage to the church and himself - and is insulting God by saying Christ was sinful as we are....Christ was different as he was the only one to ever keep the law..but we are not required to equal his character but we are to imitate it as much as possible. READ - Roy Adams - The Nature of Christ or Woodrow Whidden - the humanity of Christ - and stay far away far away from Dennis Priebe's book...the real gospel face to face for it is not the Gospel but a heretical teaching as Dwayne teaches.
So having a “sinful nature” means being hungry, tired, and thirsty? This makes no sense. How in the world does this equate to Jesus being tempted like as we are? Hebrews 4:15 Jesus was literally tempted to do wrong things BUT DID NOT YIELD to those temptations. I’m not tempted to eat, drink, or sleep because those are natural responses of humanity. These are not “temptations”. Please read Face to Face with the real Gospel by Dennis Priebe. It has very good insight. Listen to Bill Lehmans lecture on the nature of Christ. One of the most balanced presentations I’ve ever heard. Jesus did not cultivate evil like we did. THIS is definitely where He differs from us. However, was He tempted to do what self wanted to do rather than God. YES. Matthew 4:1-11, Hebrews 4:14,15, and Hebrews 2:17 proves this. Jesus had our sinful nature Romans 8:3, and 1:3, He did not sin. When we are born again, THE SAME CAN BE WITH US! Hallelujah! Any other message comes from the evil one, and whoever closed his ear and bears such a message, may they fall under Gods curse. Galatians 1:9
Dwayne, The fact that Christ was hungry - thirsty, tired, added an extra burden to his humanity that Adam did not have - that is the point you are failing to comprehend - the Great controversy is over the law - was it just - could it be obeyed...satan said no...but Christ came "WEAKER" than Adam yet still kept the law - after 4000 years of inherited - weakened fallen humanity... The issue is not can you and I keep the law yet that is important - but the "GREAT CONTROVERY" is whether or not Adam could in his pre-fall nature - as satan said he could not and the law was unjust and therefore God is to blame for the universal mess of sin. Christ was tempted as Adam was and as you and I are but temptation is not sin...in either nature...I have read Priebi at least 2-3 times - I listened to Lehmann but he and Dennis are wrong....Christ was tempted in the principles of sin as you and I are and as Adam was....you are not required to equal the character of Christ but we are to emulate to imitate it as much as possibly human. EGW. Christ vanquished satan in the same nature over which in Eden satan obtained the victory ...7A sdabc ...924 pray about it - keep an open mind ---Batchelor is even wrong as was Joe crews...and maybe but not sure Stephen Bohr who I acknowledge as a scholar. Many had your view but later changed....hope all is well! always good to share the word.
Victory over sin is possible - BUT - the constant focus on it is a sign of psychological and spiritual dysfunction....there is more to Christianity than the management of sin....but the sick minds among us have a wrong focus because they have the wrong view on the nature of Christ as Pr. Dwayne does...Christ came as Adam was before the fall yet weakened by sinful human infirmity but not the sinfulness of fallen man...Christ was weaker than Adam in physical mental and moral strength as Adam was perfect ...but depression is not sin for Christ experienced depression ...Adam never did in Eden ...DA 117...this false teaching divides the church which is the devils focus.
I cannot find anywhere in the scriptures that encourages us to trust in scholars commentaries. In fact, it was the scholars or “so called” learned men of the law in Jesus’ day that often was against the truth, and needed healing from their errant ways. Read: John 19:6/Luke 5:17 As to the Non Adventists seeing that I don’t place my confidence in scholars but in the word of God and the inspired writings of His last day prophet, I think thats a good witness to give and not bad. After all, Acts 5:29 includes scholars as well. I would say that the categorization, insults, and mean spirit that you have approached me in is a far worse demonstration of Christian Brotherhood and can be most discouraging to Non SDA’s. I marvel at how its so difficult for people like yourself to disagree without being disagreeable. Your words to me are not redemptive at all. Do you really believe people would be drawn to the gospel by your method? Woe be to Sunday worshipers who defend Sunday, or Spiritualists who defend immediate life after death. According to your method, you would damn them to hell and go to bed with a clear conscience? SMH. I have read all the quotes you have shared time and again. I agree Jesus didn’t share with our “propensities” to evil. The problem is when we only understand the word “propensity” to be something directly attached to the very essence of the human nature, and not a “learned” and cultivated behavior. The word propensity from the 1828 dictionary (great dictionary used in EGW’s day and speaks most clearly to the definition of terms she used in her writings) means: PROPENS'ITY, noun [Latin propensio.] 1. Bent of mind, natural or ACQUIRED; inclination This understanding is key in explaining this quote: Judas was naturally avaricious, and HE HAD “FOSTERED” THIS EVIL PROPENSITY until it had become the ruling motive of his life. 3SP 82.2 YET “We must learn of Christ. We must know what He is to those He has ransomed. We must realize that through belief in Him it is our privilege to be partakers of the divine nature, and so escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. Then we are cleansed from ALL sin, ALL defects of character. We need not RETAIN ONE SINFUL PROPENSITY”…. [Ephesians 2:1-6 quoted.] ... - {7BC 943.1} The above proves “propensities” can mean that which we’ve “acquired” AND THANK GOD, CAN OVERCOME COMPLETELY. Jesus did not partake of our evil propensities because it was NEVER acquired and cultivated in His life. On THIS POINT Jesus WAS NOT LIKE US. I made this clear in the Nature of Christ Study. Jesus did however have a nature that wants to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants (Matthew 26:36-46) this is the foundation of all temptation to sin. We are not tempted to sleep because of weariness, eat because of hunger, or drink because we’re thirsty. These are all human weaknesses, but I believe according to Hebrews 2:17 Jesus doesn’t just relate with us in these weaknesses but also in having a nature that left to itself, desires to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants. Again, Matthew 26:36-46 proves this is so. YET, He never once surrendered to the call of the sinful nature because He had the divine nature as well. According to 2 Peter 1:4, this is the example He has set for us, and I’m glad about this. If ou believe in prayer for people like me, then please do so, but hopefully your mind can be open that maybe Gods trying to tell you something. Maranatha
@@jkkjlemon ........... .First, let me say, my purpose here is to attack your theological view and not to attack you personally. But as an SDA for 50 years, with an education in theology, it is my duty to confront your theology, because it is not only wrong, but detrimental to the members. You start your response to me by saying, scripture does not encourage us to trust in scholars or commentaries, yet you use the 1828 version of the dictionary to prove a point. A dictionary written by a scholar who learned 26 languages and graduated from Yale and spent 28 years compiling the dictionary. So, is there a little bit of contradiction here. God did not use illiterates to advance his work, Paul was a scholar and so was Moses and they wrote more scripture than any other man. And Jesus spent 3.5 years educating the disciples, so ignorance was not one of the qualifications for discipleship. One of the gifts of the spirit is teaching (Eph. 4:11), therefore, to teach, you must have students and you must be educated. So, we all needed a teacher at some point in our SDA growth and you are no exception. But regardless of how you came to your conclusion on the nature of Christ - you have been taught wrong. I encouraged you to read Dr. Roy Adams and Dr. Woodrow Whidden, but you declined because you think you cannot be taught and have nothing to learn. Both Whidden and Dr. Raoul Dederen had your view but later changed it. Dr. Walter Veith and Morris Vendon also share my view. And SDA scholar, LeRoy Froom, said, those who hold to the postlapsarian view belong to the "lunatic fringe." You also state, that Non-SDA's would be more favorable to you because you do not rely on scholars but the bible only. But would this logic also apply to medicine or science? Do we applaud and trust illiteracy. Without scholars who would translate the bible for us and teach us how to deal with the challenges of linguistics. All the reformers were gifted scholars as Luther and Calvin, and please do not see an exception as the rule. You give me the impression you rely on your own wisdom more so than the wisdom of many, as Proverbs suggests. I have noticed the disposition in Pastors to reject constructive criticism, humility is preached but seldom practiced. As it is said - we read to teach but seldom to learn. You also criticized the spirit of my approach as offensive. But did not Jesus in Mt.23: 24 call the Pharisees - blind guides, and that is what you are. So, why is truth offensive? Why have you not taken a humble attitude and asked yourself if God has sent me into your life to reconsider your position. You appear to preach these sentiments but you don't practice them. Isaiah 56 says - the shepherds are blind, asleep, ignorant and are a dumb dogs, now that is offensive yet inspired criticism. The translation of a word is dependent on context, so you have chosen the wrong definition for propensity. for the sake of brevity I will close. But let me finish with this - if Jesus had to be just like us then we should have to be just like him, and we were not. If he was born with no propensity then we should also have the same type of birth. Plus, Christ could not sin even once, or be lost, yet we can sin a 1000 times and be forgiven and saved. I hate to see a sincere man as yourself so deceived by this divisive teaching. I hope you will have the humility and maturity to read Adams and Whidden. I have read that the sign of an intellectual is that he is introspective and self-critical.
@@DavidKing-qd3sp You don't understand where I'm coming from and its because of your prejudice. I can summarize my disagreement with you in one verse "Cursed be the man who puts his trust in man" Jeremiah 17:5. There it is. I never denied listening to teachers, and all the other rhetoric you have shared. You totally misconstrued my sentiments and sadly, THIS is what Satan does. I don't put my TRUST in scholars, and nowhere in scripture are we encouraged to do so. I have studied with MANY sharing BOTH SIDES of their views. AGAIN, you're mean, rude, and disrespectful. You cannot win souls with this ugly method you have chosen. You don't know me and your FIRST introduction of yourself was not "hello Brother, I disagree with your points and would like to talk about it. What's the best way to reach you?" You immediately launched in with categorization, prejudice, and insults. Worst off, you actually believe this is how the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and our Savior dealt with people? It borders on Blasphemy to make such an assertion! Your attitude in this disagreement shows me (and others reading it) more than enough of your so called deep understanding of the gospel after 50 years. It is possible to practice something in a WRONG way for 50 years and become really good at doing something WRONG. My point? Just because you did something for a long period of time, does not mean in and of itself your position is correct. Ask the Rabbis that were "older" than Jesus. At this point we have to agree to disagree. I don't see my ability to reason with you. The message speaks for itself and I believe a balanced view has been given. At this point I will cease discussion. I trust Jesus' words in John 10. His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him. Please remember we are to "love" even our enemies, and the FIRST lesson in love is it is "kind" 1 Corinthians 13:4. Even if I changed my position, it would be in spite of you rather than because of God using you. THIS sir, should concern you since you're such a "seasoned" gospel worker. Please before letting pride respond, think about whats being shared. Take care
@@jkkjlemon ...........Dwayne - I Understand where you are coming from -YOU DON'T....to refuse to read those 2 books and reexamine your position is not the sign of Wisdom or spiritual maturity
@@jkkjlemon you criticize commentaries yet you use the pulpit commentary - have you ever heard of consistency in thought or belief...I have to show your hypocrisy
DWAYNE-----are you unable to interpret Daniel 9.24 -to seal the vision and prophecy as i have asked you several times...that is a simple SDA teaching and you are the scholar???
@@jkkjlemon I have asked you several times - if you read my emails - to give me your view of the phrase in Daniel 9 . to seal up the vision and prophecy...can you do that and you can be very brief
@@DavidKing-qd3sp my dear it starts to look that way when ur approach is hostile and you start calling someone dogmatic and all. don't u believe when someone is sincerely seeking truth the lord will reveal it ?Amos 3:7. the attitude should not be " what i believe against what u believe" but "let"s reason together and explain to me why u interpret things this way". The spirit behind ur approach is not good and does not help but hardens someone especially when u keep insisting on it. it frankly looks like an argument and based on ur arguments u have more of references outside the Bible too.There is always a way to disagree without being disagreeable , the worst u could do is insist ur vast knowledge on youtube and say stuff like " i had to correct pastor doug on the same issue" . Pray for God to help you with other ways you can share ur views without sounding like uhhhh......like that. we are all saints under construction . lets help each other in love. You take care David
@@praiseshumba7295 ...........I showed Dwayne from SDA/bible sources where he is wrong but he rejected my input. So, i cannot sit back and watch him and Doug and Dennis Priebe and others mislead people into error and fanaticism...Christ called the Pharisees many things so name calling is biblical - it is not disrespectful as it is factual - and yes i am dogmatic or else i would not be an SDA....and if you agree with their view you are wrong also....and by the way - i have corrected Doug many times and he has acknowledged my corrections as helpful...Jesus said he came to send a sword not a feather...Luther was no pacifist...the Lord will always reveal the truth but people will not always see it or embrace it...so i push the truth forward...even JAck Sequeira had it wrong
@@praiseshumba7295 .........you ask for scripture for my position so here goes - When Christ came he delighted in the law of God to obey it Psalm 40. 8 ---- when we were born we hated the law of God with our full being Romans 8.7....Ephesians 2.3 we are the children of wrath - Psalm 58. 3 the wicked go astray from birth...and here is a quote by our pioneers...from 7A -SDABC page 924 ...Christ vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory...if you cannot see this quote clarifying the issue then you nenevr will - and I could give you another 50 quotes ..read 1128 Vol 5. SDABC or 2T.202....this false view causes people to focus on self, the law and sin...and it leaves you with guilt and a sense of incompleteness
@@DavidKing-qd3sp i did not say sit by. i said there are better ways of approaching this . since you mentioned a lot of ministers believe this have you even thought of sending this as an issue that needs attention to the higher authorities even up to the GC. and you r not even leaving the possibility of the fact that u could be wrong but everybody is wrong and u r ryt. don't argue with individuals , there are better ways of getting points across without trying to sound like you know everything. Jesus was perfect and He did know everything so in that regard you can't use Jesus as ur scape goat because you do not have the power to perceive anyone's spirit or thoughts. maybe they just needed a bit more proof and were trying to understand but u started calling them names. you just aren't doing it right and the sad thing is u can't see that , so u gonna keep doing all that till u get frustrated and leave the church and start ur own where "truth" is preached . this is where this is going.
YOU PEOPLE - who have never studied the nature of Christ can be convinced to believe anything...the view presented here by Pr. Dwayne - is not only wrong but dangerous.
David, you have to let people study for themselves. You’re way too dogmatic about what you believe. There’s mounting evidence for both sides of the study and it equites Christlike patience when we differ. You have failed on this point, and have allowed the world to see. You’ve expressed your disagreement, provided your interpretations, and referred your books. You have done your work. Now leave it to God to allow us to be settled in the truth as it is in Jesus. Stop the insulting, demeaning, rude, commentaries. It’s absolutely KILLING your so called “witness”. I hope you will cease and desist.
@@jkkjlemon .....I have not attempted to attack you personally but if you feel that I have then I apologize to you.... send me your view od Daniel 9: 24 regarding - to seal vision and prophecy
@@jkkjlemon ......Dwayne - if I should let people study for themselves - why don't you do the same and present both views and allow people to make up their own mind - but you are DOGMATIC in your position as i am with mine....so live what you preach ---
DWAYNE.....You say - "Christ had a nature that wants to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants.. this is the foundation of all temptation to sin.".and you quote MT.26. 23-26 But John 6: 38 says " I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me." And Psalm 40: 7-8 says - "I come in the volume of this book - it is written of me - I DELIGHT to do thy will - thy law is within my heart" and heart here as you have said before means -Nature. And in this context it does. Our mind / heart / nature - is at enmity with God - we hate righteousness and God's law....So, please reevaluate your understanding of the nature of Christ --- and when one preaches or teaches -one needs to be correct -also known as -Dogmatic.
TEXT : jOHN 5. 30...I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me...6. 38... I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.. Ps. 40.8 I delight to do thy will - thy law is written on my heart /nature So Dwayne, Christ did not have a will in opposition to God's will as you said...reevaluate your view
If you have never studied this topic then you cannot be sure who is right because you are just choosing sides...anybody can twist scripture and EGW to say anything - What is being taught here is WRONG....to prove it yourself read - Roy Adams -- the nature of Christ...or Woodrow Whidden - the humanity of Christ Christ was sinless with 4000 of inherited weaknesses but not sinfulness
@@jkkjlemon ..........I read that book twice maybe even 3 times...What a tragedy - you read the wrong authors and came to the wrong conclusion...amazing that you are not perceptive - in-tune with the holy spirit....you walk in a darkness that you cannot see. I read Adams twice, whidden twice, Sequeria twice, Davis, Crews, ministry magazine on that topic and other articles and maybe a book or 2 more....and the Spirit of prophecy....So did Dr. Walter Veith, and he agrees with me... Did you get your education at an independent school like Uchee pines ? How about Daniel 9.24...to seal vision and prophecy???
@@jkkjlemon .......only a narrow mind reads one side of the argument....you are naive, sorry! You express the same mentality that I often see in - JW's....I cannot read anything that may challenge me....as I am one of the 144,000...lol
Dwayne, The local Pastor here in my area would not allow Priebe to speak in his churches and he Pastored the largest church....I feel sorry for you, a man who was sure he was right but was wrong and could not see it...Romans 10. 2....Zeal without Knowledge
Pr. Dwayne - you give me the impression that you were influenced by a factious group within Adventism - you have bought into - last generation theology - along with the wrong view for the nature of Christ - and I would venture to say - you are so far into that mind-set that you probably will never come out...and I have not yet considered the ramifications of that for you...but it does show a misguided mind and the absence of truth and the spirit of truth. For your own sake I hope you will do a reevaluation of your theology....you are a very capable person but somehow your early experiences and influences have led you down the wrong road - and I only wish you the best. Just because a few prominent Pastors hold your view it does not make it right - as some of our top scholars have been wrong - like Ford, and he led hundreds of ministers out of the church...be open minded -prove all things...read Adams.
FINAL QUOTE - sinful nature does not refer to a state of sinfulness, but can, and is best understood to refer to the degenerative infirmities of Adam's sinful nature that were the result of sin....but not sinful within itself - fear is from the fruit of sin but it is not a sin to be fearful or have anxiety. So, Christ was weaker in physical strength, mental power and moral worth, but they in themselves is not a sin but the fruit or effects of sin...and Christ took these weakened sinful infirmities in his human nature...And for some very strange reason - Pr. Dwayne cannot comprehend that truth. So let me give you a better quote to prove Dwayne is wrong....Christ defeated Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory...Vol 7A, SDABC page 924 - quote for Hebrews 2.......so Christ had the same nature as Adam did in Eden and that was sinless....Beware of this false teaching
WRONG....the view presented here is wrong - Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall - he came as Adam was yet weaker through the law of heredity - but not in sinfulness - he was weaker than Adam in physical strength - mental power and moral worth...most independant ministries have this wrong Walter Veith has it right....5% of SDA's have Pr. Dwaynes view...see da. 117 plus 49
The Bible is clear Jesus had a sinful nature as well. Romans 8:3 and Romans 1:3. Ellen White emphatically states that Jesus took on our sinful nature. Decide for yourselves folks. Believe David King, or the Bible. I’ve made my decision.
The Bible clearly states Jesus had our sinful nature. Romans 8:3, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:16 Ellen White says: He took upon His sinless nature our SINFUL NATURE, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. - {MM 181.3} Christ had BOTH a sinless nature AND sinful nature. Jesus did NOT just have a sinless nature. He came to this world as we are born again. When we’re born again we retain our sinful nature but we also become partakers of the Divine Nature as well. THIS is the truth
@@jkkjlemon .......A sinful nature does not automatically mean he sinned or had sinful propensities - it means in contrast to Adam he took on the effects of sinfulness but not sin itself...so it is all a matter of interpretation and understanding....Jesus was weaker than Adam in physical strength but that is not sin in itself but it is the effect of sin - so it is the effects of sin EGW is talking about as they were the result of sin but not sinful---- as I said Christ came to prove God's law could be kept by Adam even in a weaker condition than Adam ...but he was the 2nd Adam...the Great Controversy is between Christ and Satan not Satan and man....Sorry, But Pr. Dwayne has it wrong. Christ was born a holy thing Luke1.35 we are born carnal sold unto sin
@@jkkjlemon .........You take one statement by EGW or scripture and ignore the rest, such as, he was not like other children - he had no sinful propensity but Adams posterity did...his nature recoiled form evil....and do you think scholars within Adventism are ignorant of truth...unless we challenge our beliefs they cannot stand with certainty, it is wise to face all views
@@jkkjlemon Romans 1.3 is just identifying Jesus as coming from the line of David it is not about his nature...neither are the genealogies like Mt.1...Christ had to be shown to come from David's line. and if the law could not justify or produce righteousness in 8. 3 and Christ did as the only man then he had to be different for it says - what the law "could not do.'
Praise God for the powerful message!
What a wonderful blessing and a turning point again in my life🙏🏼🥰 God Bless yr Ministry
Suzi.....read the book - the nature of Christ by Roy Adams or the humanity of Christ by Woodrow Whidden and you will see that Pr. Dwayne Lemon is wrong on his view of the nature of Christ...here is a quote ---Christ vanquished satan in the same nature over which in Eden satan obtained the victory...also found in vol.7a SDABC page 924 on hebrews 2...also Vol 5.SDABC page 1128 he did not take our sinful propensities as Adams posterity did.......I have studied this for 40 years and I also have a degree in SDA theology
Amen! Beautiful message, thank-you.
I love This message very powerful!! May God help me!!!
Not “May”, God will definitely help you “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us”. May YOU cooperate with Him and have implicit faith in Him.
Thank you!!
!WOooOW! What a beautiful amazing sermon...yay praise the Lord Jesus 🥰🙏🏿😄✝️📖
Thank you for this message. This is a Bible-supported answer to the question I had about this topic. Thank you and thank God
Elizabeth - the view presented here by Dwayne is held by about 5% of the church - he is wrong in his understanding - it is easy to convince someone of something they do not understand - Jesus did not have our sinful nature - he was affected by sin but not infected...this false view will give you a focus on yourself rather than Christ for righteousness and salvation....read DA. 311...he recoiled from sin whereas we are attracted to sin....Steps to Christ p.19 if my memory is correct..also 202 of 2T and 1128 of vol 5. SDABC
Another practical message of how to be victorious in Jesus! Amen. There is no reason to keep living in bondage.
Valerie - the view presented here by Pr. Dwayne is wrong - Jesus had the sinless nature of Adam before the fall yet he was weakened by inherited infirmities - He was weakened in physical strenght - mental power and moral worth DA.117 also page 49...PSalm 40.8 says he delighted to do God's will whereas Romans 8.7 says we have a carnal mind /nature that is at enmity with God - 5% of church leaders have Dwaynes view...Walter Veith has my view as Did Morris Venden and Roy Adams and Woodrow Whidden etc. and LeRoy Froom
Amen
Praise God I want to know more about this topics
Amen! Praise Father For This Confirmation!!
David---Dwayne Lemon is wrong on the nature of Christ and so are you if you agree with him...read Roy Adams - the nature of Christ...or woodrow Widden the humanity of Christ
I appreciate your concern but you have not judged righteously. You must have listened to this with the intention to look for error. I’m not concerned with who but what and the Holy Spirit does not lead into error. No mouth piece is above error. No channel is not corrupt. The truths needed to be highlighted for me where I’m at were praise Father!
I find it strange the first book you mention is available on Amazon, though it was published 1994. Here is a review of this $130 dollar book you suggested.
“I expected a dissertation on the subject of the Nature of Christ but was treated instead to a verbal attack against certain other authors that believe differently from this one. Disappointed.”
Which is in line with your comment to me. Completely void of any of the fruits of the spirit. The truth will alway have relentless Christ-less opposition.
Let me suggest the Bible, which is the best book of all, and The Sonship of Christ by Ty Gibson, much cheaper 😅. Sad to see heated disagreement but happy to see this topic come up because it is a beautiful topic and a very important one
@@paolaortega8189 ..........You should have presented Ty's view - but if my memory is correct he believes in the pre-fall nature of Christ with innocent infirmities but not sinful propensities as does James Rafferty...I think, as it has been many years since I have read their views...but that is the correct view as Walter Veith holds it also - but amazingly Doug Batchelor has it wrong....but the bible isn't as clear on it as I would like unless you do much deeper study....So, Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall - we have our natures from after the fall
So many commenting on the nature of Christ have no clue about it. Some are very logical, some skeptical, some paranoid, some critical, but only a few have that peace in the heart which passed all understanding.
My dear brother Lemon. Thank you for your sermon and sermons. They are a great blessing to me. Thank God for everything. Now, may I kindly contribute my comment regarding the nature of Christ?
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.
This makes so much sense thank you for clarifying this
@@christierennard4838 praise God 🙏🏻
Wow. Thank God.
❤
Great message Brother
Amen and amen
God may have a sinless group in the end of times but that means nothing for we have all sinned a million times and that is on our good days -correct?
Thank you for finally acknowledging God will have a sinless group in the last days.
As to it meaning nothing. That is a terrible comment. Thankfully you are no authority to make such a statement.
God put it there for a reason.
Do you know what the reason is?
Well, at least one person is willing to read Roy Adams on the nature of christ - so my efforts have not been in vain....and a 2nd book would be - the humanity of Christ by Woodrow Whidden - as he looks at that topic via the writings of EGW
I’m fine with that. I don’t have time to. May God guide the one who reads it.
@@jkkjlemon ......if it profited you you'd make time---we always have time for things that profit us....but you should think of others and truth itself.
Upon seeing the comments on this video it is painfully clear what has been done… He that answereth a matter before he heareth it , it is folly and shame unto him.Proverbs 18:13
This made Satan very angry.
Fully agreed my Brother. Thank you for your comments.
When the truth is presented to the people, it seems to many to be consistent and right; and if the enemy and his followers did not come in and oppose it by every means in their power, where there are now ten who take hold of it, there would be thousands. RH March 9, 1886, par. 6
The only way in which God could deal with Satan was to take a straightforward course; and this is the course that his children must pursue in the great controversy which is still being carried on in the world between truth and error, light and darkness. Those who hold the truth in righteousness will be fair; they can afford to be fair. But those who oppose the truth lack Bible evidence to sustain their position. Therefore they are not fair, but are constantly warring against the things that are for their good. RH March 9, 1886, par. 7
Genesis 1.26 says we were made in the likeness of God but not identically in all points - same with Christ . he was made like man but not completely - hewas not sinful as we are
JOHN THE BAPTIST.....had the same faults and weaknesses common to humanity DA . 179..........he had a moment as we all do to be transformed through his willingness to be converted to Christ. He was not sinless form the womb - he was only filled with the Spirit --- but spirit filled people sin and need to make a choice
No argument here. Simply making the point that we could be born filled with the Holy Spirit (divine nature) as well.
@@jkkjlemon ..............being filled with the holy spirit does not exclude us from also having a carnal nature which Jesus did not have
Jesus was born into a loving parental home - he was not subjected to parental sexual abuse - he was not malnourished so that it affected his mental health development - he had a high IQ....he was not born with physical or mental health issues like down syndrome or no limbs - or fetal alcohol syndrome...not born into a satanic cult - so to say Christ was not different or had no advantages in some ways is wrong....as I said to you - state what you think are the ramifications of each view....because that is the central issue and shows clearly where the wrong view takes you.
Look up the word propensity or propensities in Ellen White's writings. You will find that we have sinful propensities whereas Jesus Christ did not have sinful propensity. This is not in disagreement with anything brother lemon has said. This is just an aspect of his sinful nature it discussion
the reason Paul uses the word -likeness- is to refute the heresy of Docetism....the view here presented is wrong...From John Stott on Romans page 219...
Dwayne--- read a 9 page article from Andrews University on the nature of Christ - go to
ellen white on the human nature of christ / andrews university......(no spaces) .....it takes in three views..
If You read EGW you will know she has many definitions for the same word or phrase....and she did make statements where her focus was on the motives of people rather than the true facts of the events...so if Dwayne knew the different interpretations for the phrase sinful nature he would not be so dogmatic and would reevaluate his view
The question remains, please tell me what you understand about the group who comes to a place of victory over sin in the last days. You mentioned it so I’m asking what do you understand about this group.
Thanks
@@jkkjlemon ........if there is a group that ceases to sin before Christ returns it will be the result of God giving them the victory - that would be a gift from heaven but it is not the requirement for heaven ...for the past 2000 years people have been talking about the last sinless generation but we are not there yet..so it should not be the focus--- the focus should be prayer - repentance - confession - perseverance and the right exercise of the will...but perfection should not be seen or introduced as an ultimatum .....I believe in the possibility of victory but I also believe in forgiveness...if victory is the ticket for salvation where would you and I be if we died tonight.
There have been days I've been fit for translation and other days I am too bad for hell---can you relate?...But we must not burden the members with perfectionism but with a loving relationship. It is love that gives the victory. And having the wrong view on the nature of Christ creates this imbalance in justification vs sanctification. We are told that some of those who cannot endure the last days will be laid to rest...I am looking to Christ and not the demand for victory. As we are told in Steps to Christ - we shall often have to bow down and weep at the feet of Jesus because of our short comings and mistakes "BUT" even if we are overcome by the enemy we are not cast off. That is the grace of the Gospel.
@@DavidKing-qd3sp it’s not “IF” there will be a group that will have victory over sin. There WILL be a group.
I don’t have any problem with what you’ve explained about forgiveness, mercy, and grace. Fully agreed, and IT IS WHAT I TEACH.
However, I’m asking what is the purpose of God having this group of people who have actual victory over sin.
This is key to our discussion and this is the first time I’m hearing you acknowledge it. Now I want to hone in on it.
What is Gods purpose of establishing such a group as described in Revelation 14:12?
This is my question to you.
@@jkkjlemon ...........As SDA's, many teach a sinless last generation - but we have no record of that ever happening in the past- not even in the life of Paul, Moses, or any SDA founder...and if it happens in the future it will be through a relationship with God and His spirit within us - now whichever view we take regarding the nature of Christ, we are all striving for a victorious life ...so it is not dependent upon a proper understanding of the nature of Christ, because victory is not dependent upon knowing what nature Jesus had - but it is in knowing with God all things are possible through his Spirit and Grace in us. And I will say, having the prelapsarian view will not hinder one from victory unless you make excuses for sin, which no mature Christian does. But having the postlapsarian view may hinder one's salvation because it can make one focus on their deficiencies and live a life of guilt and uncertainty, ending in apostasy.
So, if the last generation lives above sin it will be to demonstrate God's power in our lives, through the resurrected Christ, via the presence of the holy spirit in our lives. It will not be to demonstrate what a sinful Christ could do, therefore so can we....it will be to demonstrate that an atoning Christ with all of its ramifications could empower us to live above sin....and totally redeem us from the power of sin.
We sometimes hold to collective views that are later to be found imbalanced so I am in the progressive camp of being open-minded. If it is not clearly stated then I make no dogmatic statements. But one thing is for sure, victory over willful sin is possible according to scripture, but I don't know if that will happen until there is first a healing process taking place in the lives of Christians, because we are all so damaged - both spiritually and psychologically.
So, my answer to your question of God's purpose in establishing an obedient group as in Rev. 12...is to manifest - his love - his grace - his power. And all to the glory and praise of Christ. It is not the narrow focus of what sinful man could do - but the glorious view of what God did through Christ, because the act of salvation involved not just man but the unfallen worlds also.
As you know, error can only produce confusion and further the devil's plan, so we must be humble enough to second guess ourselves - for people's live's / salvation hang in the balance, and it is not about us. So, I hope you will be open minded enough to read Adams and Whidden. I have noticed others have spoken to you with the same concerns, so that should make one reconsider their position. God speaks to us through his word - his spirt and his people...so we are not your enemy but Brother's in Christ.
And I hope you make time to answer my question - what - to seal the vision and prophecy means to you.
@@jkkjlemon .............As I understand the Great Controversy - it is about the character of God - and as we read the 5 volume set of the Conflict of the Ages series it starts and ends with the same 3 words - God is Love...
So within the events and history of the bible this theme is the one that is seeking expression and acknowledgement. So, God's restoration of sinful man to a state of sinless man is an expression of His character of love. It also demonstrates his power and Grace. So, to me, in essence, this is the purpose of God in restoring or redeeming man to his image ...He is the Father of Love.
Our redemption from sin means a restoration to His law...but we do not put on immortality nor incorruption until the day of the resurrection ...1st Cor. 15: 52 - 53.....until then our characters will undergo a change but not our nature...we will have a sinful nature until the resurrection.
Genesis 1:26 says - let us make man in our likeness or image - but man is not identical to God - he is only like God in some aspects...so Jesus was made like sinful man but not completely - he was not born with a nature of sin or to sin as we are - he was born with innocent infirmities but not sinful propensities - Dwayne is Wrong...even Dr. Jack Sequeira says that and Dr. Roy Adams and Dr. Woodrow Whidden - so read their books on the nature of Christ....Adam never experienced - hunger - sleep deprivation - or depression but Christ did and these things added to the weight of Christ's temptations they are innocent infirmities but not sinful in themselves...
When Adam was born sinless - he was born human also....so christ had Adams pre-fall nature as a sinless human......if christ was 100% like us there would be no reason to say it -as that would be an obvious conclusion...but he was not altogether human as ourselves 5 SDABC page 1128....he did not inherit the sinful propensities from Adam - but we did....so the word likeness supports the view that he was not 100% like us...he had innocent infirmities not sinful propensities............read Roy Adams - the nature of Christ....Dennis Priebe is wrong as is Doug Batchelor..as is Pr. Dwayne
Dwayne...REV. 14. 12 is not about those who will be sinless in the last days - it may be about those who do not worship the beast and keep the Sabbath - so let's not be dogmatic without research into the context....as 13 was a discussion on the worship of the beast...it is not a discussion on sinless living or perfection - unless we read that into it
You said there will be a group of people who reach sinlessness but it meant nothing. If it’s not those in Revelation 14:12, then who is it? These are your words
@@jkkjlemon ........Those are not my words - EGW says - those who are living victoriously will not be conscious of it - so we will never know from that context...and it does not matter becuase we are doing our best and no command will change our experience - we do our best...he makes up for the rest
@@jkkjlemon ..........it means nothing because they have already sinned - Christ never sinned - that was my context - REV. 14.12 may not be saying what you impose on the text - the context is the worship of the beast and obedience to the Sabbath ---it is not about sinlessness or nature....
the wrong view on the nature of christ is presented here by Dwayne Lemon...Christ came as Adam was before the fall - except he came weaker than Adam but not sinful
Dwayne - did you read my response to the idea of Christ being hungry, tired, thirsty, etc. Did you understand my point.
plus...you say Christ had to be tempted like us - yet EGW says he was tempted beyond what any man will encounter - did you experience the cross - the 78 lashes - the thorns - the nails in hands and feet - the separation form God because of becoming sin and enduring his wrath...so to say Jesus has to be tempted like us is -asinine - 10 and 11..he went beyond human comprehension and sweat blood...have you done that in your trials - so, Christ had to repress his divine nature as we have to repress our sinful nature - the principles of temptation are the same for Christ and us...but he came sinless...Amazing how you cannot grasp this concept
I found another author I read Frank Philips and he agrees with me---read his book - his robe or mine and check the appendix for chapter on nature of christ
Hebrews 4:14 states clearly He was tempted like us. True He was tempted beyond us. But nevertheless, He was tempted like us as well. This is my focus.
Frank Phillips book His robe or mine, is an atrocity to the truth of the nature of Christ.
You have embraced the new theology and this is our difference. ML Andreasan addressed this with the book Question on Doctrines.
This is an old issue in our church and we are not going to agree.
The texts, and quotes you have shared are not sustainable to your argument.
@@jkkjlemon .......Do you think God has forsaken his people on this topic - or any other - and left it to a few independent's who see themselves as a remnant within the remnant
DA. 300....The Lord can do nothing towards the recovery of man until convinced of his own weakness...and stripped of all self sufficiency ....he yields himself to the control of God.....YOU cannot do this because you think victory is in your will-power but it is in Christ by faith alone...
I tried to help you - God spoke to you - but you heard it as the voice of an enemy...and this deafness and ignorance will shape your spiritual and intellectual life.
But I wish you the best....When you become humble and wiser - read Adams and Whidden
at 43 minutes he says we have a natural bend towards evil...but christ did not...the law was written on his heart from birth psalm 40.8
The spirit in which you come to the investigation of the Scriptures will determine the character of the assistant at your side. Angels from the world of light will be with those who in humility of heart seek for divine guidance. But if the Bible is opened with irreverence, with A feeling of SELF-SUFFICIENCY, if the HEART IS FILLED WITH PREJUDICE, SATAN IS BESIDE YOU, and he will set the plain statements of God’s word in a PERVERTED LIGHT. - {TM 108.1}
Romans 8:3,4 shows Jesus partook of our sinful nature.
Romans 1:3 shows Jesus had the same nature King David had. (Flesh in the Greek is nature)
Thankfully, He still didn’t sin. We have hope as well that through the in dwelling Christ, we too can have victory over sin. Hebrews 4:15,16
@@jkkjlemon .........Romans 8.3-4...
what was it the law could not do - it could not justify the sinner...because he could not keep it - so if the law could not produce righteous obedience in the flesh and Christ could - then he must have had a different flesh....so now that he gives us the same spirit he had we can also live above sin but show me one person who has that experience...not one.
Rom. 1:3 Christ came from the seed of David but God was his father - so no negative inheritance.
The Great Controversy is between Christ and Satan - not Satan and Man...Christ had to prove God's law could be kept by Adam yet he proved it by being even weaker than Adam through inherited infirmities, yet in Adam's pre-fall sinless nature.
You would educate yourself if you just read those 2 books as I have read several books.
The head of the theology department where I attended was a noted Genius and even he had the prelapsarian view. Only 5% of leaders have your view.
@@jkkjlemon You quoted Mt. 26.36-46 to show Christ had a nature that wants to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants to do ....This event had absolutely nothing to do with His nature - it had more to do with common sense and the realization of the pain of crucifixion and then the abandonment by God...as He became sin for the human race and took the full weight of God's wrath on sin. so, you show a lack of understanding or a Will that just wants to prove its point regardless of context.
@@jkkjlemon......
HEPPENSTALL...page 25 our high priest...Man inherited the result of Adam's sin...man in himself has no way back to God
@@jkkjlemon ........Heppenstall...page 51...our high priest ....all men begin life with this alienation from God which they inherit from Adam...52 all men are born without God in this world
the word likeness means ...similar
So was Jesus similar to a human being but not actually a human being in Philippians 2:7?
@@jkkjlemon ..........let me quote Dr. Jack Sequeira..."We must never teach that Christ had a sinful nature , that would be heresy." This is from = the truth as it is in Jesus page 7.( Romans 8: 1-3)...So Dwayne - he was similar but not identical - read Adams and Whidden
@@jkkjlemon ....Adam was human but not sinful as was Christ
@@jkkjlemon ........Genesis 1: 26 says - let us make man in our likeness or image - that does not mean we are identical to God - but we are similar - so Dwayne - please keep studying this topic as one day you may see the truth - Christ had the innocent infirmities of sinful man but not his sinful propensities as we do
@@jkkjlemon .......Genesis 1.26 says let us make man in our likeness or image but there was a difference between God and Man - so Dwayne as I quoted to you Dr. Jack Sequeira - he said to say Christ was sinful at birth as we are is heresy...but maybe one day you'll see the truth...
at 104....he tries to prove christ had a sinful nature by using the phrase - in the likeness of sinful flesh....but the text also says - what the law could not do because of the weakness of human fleash - so if christ was just like us he would not be able to keep the law...sinful nature does not equal sinful acts of sin but it does suggest a sinful state of being...which only guarantees that man would sin right out of the womb psalm 58.3...Amazing Pr. Dwayne is unable to reason through this topic.
Incorrect, he could keep the law because while HE DID have a sinful nature, He ALSO had the divine nature!
This is why understanding the nature of Christ is so important!
Because He did it, WE can do it.
This is why there WILL be a people in the last days that KEEP, (notice they are not TRYING to keep) the commandments of God. Revelation 14:12
There will be a people who will ACTUALLY live lives ABOVE sin though tempted severely.
For anyone to teach any other gospel. Let him be accursed Galatians 1:9
@@jkkjlemon Are you living above sin...and you are the one teaching another Gospel so maybe you should be accursed.
One day you will see that you are wrong....you seem to be rigid in your reasoning - black or white...no gray. Talk with Ivor Myers see what he says and let me know.....you will waste your energy trying to do what God will do for you - that is your probelm looking to the law and self
@@jkkjlemon ............As I have said before - an intellectual is one who is given to introspection and self-criticism...And - A true scholar is one who rejoices when he's been shown to be wrong. I have noticed that others have made the same charges against you, so I am not alone.
But Dwayne, tell me, how could the holy spirit ever reach you to correct you or guide you....if we were talking about the Sabbath and you rejected my views I would understand - but this doctrine is not as clear as any other teaching.
I believe in the possibility of victory over sin but I also believe in the unfallen nature of Christ...one offers victory through Grace the other demands victory through Grace - in my view. That may be the biggest difference and a stumbling block to many sensitive souls - because others are not educated or gifted in these issues and we can do much harm - in Christ's name!
Dwayne......take a humble attitude - read Roy Adams as others have suggested - be open minded...and if you still disagree after reading the book, at least you were open minded - but God may surprise you as you may see things from a different perspective. And also look at Woodrow Whidden's book - a look at the humanity of Christ through the writings of EGW.
You have much to gain and nothing to lose.
ANOTHER TOPIC ....Dwayne - please give me your view on the phrase in Daniel 9.24 ...to seal the vision and the prophecy ...this has always been a challenge
50 minutes....the wicked goes astray as soon as they are born psalm 58.3 Romans 8.7 says the carnal mind is at enmity with God yet jesus was born with a nature to love and obey psalm 40.8.......we are bor in a sinful state before we act out...Dwayne is confused
The entirety of the sermon speaks for itself.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (FOR THE CHILDREN BEING NOT YET BORN, NEITHER HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) {Romans 9:10,11}
Children are not born sinners and therefore guilty. Our natures without intervention will practice sin, but when we’re born again, we don’t have to and by Gods grace won’t sin against Him. 1 John 3:9 Praise God
This is the real gospel
@@jkkjlemon .........The main question for this topic has to be answered and that question is - what difference does it make in a Christian's life because both views cannot be right and there must be negative consequences for the wrong view...So answer that question for me from your understanding
@@jkkjlemon .........We are born with a sinful nature that seeks sinful behaviors...Christ had the law written in his nature and his nature recoiled from sin...Children stand guilty before God not for their sins but for their nature....if a child grows up without sinning and dies he is not saved because of his sinlessness - he is condemned because of his sinful nature and needs to be born again...
And your Romans 9 quote is about election to service so I am not sure of the point you are making
@@DavidKing-qd3sp completely disagree with you. Your statement is not Biblical and Roman Catholic to the core. The purpose of the Romans 9 quote is to show that children are neither innocent or guilty at birth.
Therefore we are not born guilty ie: sinners. It’s a Roman Catholic teaching. Not a Protestant teaching
@@jkkjlemon ........Romans 9 is about election to service it is not a discussion on the nature of Christ or sinfulness of children .....I encourage you to take another look at it..........And though we reject Catholicism they were not wrong on every point.
I cannot see how you can reject the simple and plain quote that says - Christ vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory ..7A.924
I would be curious to know how holding my view would affect you. I have a friend who is the Conference president and he once had your view.
Dwayne - it would not kill you to read 2 books - You always speak about being open to God's guidance but you do not show flexibility here. I have focused on this topic close to 50 years. Even the Ministry Magazine has several articles on this which I read years ago along with about 6 books and many conversations, so you are in the minority.
ADam was a man but not sinful - so with christ
DA . Page 311 - He became flesh even as we are - he was hungry - thirsty - tired - he was sustained by food - refreshed by sleep...he shared the lot of man.......This is what is meant by Romans 8: 3 - he became flesh but not sinful flesh as we are at birth...Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall...but he was born with and subjected too, infirmities that were the result of Adams sin, but they were not sinful in themselves. Adam did not know by experience - hunger - thirst - tiredness . depression - he did not need sleep - So, Christ came weaker than Adam, as is stated in DA. 117...he was weaker in physical strength - mental power and moral worth. Christ possessed or was weakened by the infirmities of sin BUT not sin in itself..
And Dwayne does not have the insight to see this difference and he is doing much damage to the church and himself - and is insulting God by saying Christ was sinful as we are....Christ was different as he was the only one to ever keep the law..but we are not required to equal his character but we are to imitate it as much as possible.
READ - Roy Adams - The Nature of Christ or Woodrow Whidden - the humanity of Christ - and stay far away far away from Dennis Priebe's book...the real gospel face to face for it is not the Gospel but a heretical teaching as Dwayne teaches.
So having a “sinful nature” means being hungry, tired, and thirsty? This makes no sense. How in the world does this equate to Jesus being tempted like as we are? Hebrews 4:15
Jesus was literally tempted to do wrong things BUT DID NOT YIELD to those temptations.
I’m not tempted to eat, drink, or sleep because those are natural responses of humanity. These are not “temptations”.
Please read Face to Face with the real Gospel by Dennis Priebe. It has very good insight.
Listen to Bill Lehmans lecture on the nature of Christ. One of the most balanced presentations I’ve ever heard.
Jesus did not cultivate evil like we did. THIS is definitely where He differs from us.
However, was He tempted to do what self wanted to do rather than God. YES. Matthew 4:1-11, Hebrews 4:14,15, and Hebrews 2:17 proves this.
Jesus had our sinful nature Romans 8:3, and 1:3, He did not sin. When we are born again, THE SAME CAN BE WITH US! Hallelujah!
Any other message comes from the evil one, and whoever closed his ear and bears such a message, may they fall under Gods curse. Galatians 1:9
Dwayne, The fact that Christ was hungry - thirsty, tired, added an extra burden to his humanity that Adam did not have - that is the point you are failing to comprehend - the Great controversy is over the law - was it just - could it be obeyed...satan said no...but Christ came "WEAKER" than Adam yet still kept the law - after 4000 years of inherited - weakened fallen humanity...
The issue is not can you and I keep the law yet that is important - but the "GREAT CONTROVERY" is whether or not Adam could in his pre-fall nature - as satan said he could not and the law was unjust and therefore God is to blame for the universal mess of sin.
Christ was tempted as Adam was and as you and I are but temptation is not sin...in either nature...I have read Priebi at least 2-3 times - I listened to Lehmann but he and Dennis are wrong....Christ was tempted in the principles of sin as you and I are and as Adam was....you are not required to equal the character of Christ but we are to emulate to imitate it as much as possibly human. EGW.
Christ vanquished satan in the same nature over which in Eden satan obtained the victory ...7A sdabc ...924
pray about it - keep an open mind ---Batchelor is even wrong as was Joe crews...and maybe but not sure Stephen Bohr who I acknowledge as a scholar.
Many had your view but later changed....hope all is well! always good to share the word.
Victory over sin is possible - BUT - the constant focus on it is a sign of psychological and spiritual dysfunction....there is more to Christianity than the management of sin....but the sick minds among us have a wrong focus because they have the wrong view on the nature of Christ as Pr. Dwayne does...Christ came as Adam was before the fall yet weakened by sinful human infirmity but not the sinfulness of fallen man...Christ was weaker than Adam in physical mental and moral strength as Adam was perfect ...but depression is not sin for Christ experienced depression ...Adam never did in Eden ...DA 117...this false teaching divides the church which is the devils focus.
I cannot find anywhere in the scriptures that encourages us to trust in scholars commentaries. In fact, it was the scholars or “so called” learned men of the law in Jesus’ day that often was against the truth, and needed healing from their errant ways. Read: John 19:6/Luke 5:17
As to the Non Adventists seeing that I don’t place my confidence in scholars but in the word of God and the inspired writings of His last day prophet, I think thats a good witness to give and not bad. After all, Acts 5:29 includes scholars as well.
I would say that the categorization, insults, and mean spirit that you have approached me in is a far worse demonstration of Christian Brotherhood and can be most discouraging to Non SDA’s. I marvel at how its so difficult for people like yourself to disagree without being disagreeable. Your words to me are not redemptive at all. Do you really believe people would be drawn to the gospel by your method? Woe be to Sunday worshipers who defend Sunday, or Spiritualists who defend immediate life after death. According to your method, you would damn them to hell and go to bed with a clear conscience? SMH.
I have read all the quotes you have shared time and again. I agree Jesus didn’t share with our “propensities” to evil. The problem is when we only understand the word “propensity” to be something directly attached to the very essence of the human nature, and not a “learned” and cultivated behavior.
The word propensity from the 1828 dictionary (great dictionary used in EGW’s day and speaks most clearly to the definition of terms she used in her writings) means: PROPENS'ITY, noun [Latin propensio.]
1. Bent of mind, natural or ACQUIRED; inclination
This understanding is key in explaining this quote:
Judas was naturally avaricious, and HE HAD “FOSTERED” THIS EVIL PROPENSITY until it had become the ruling motive of his life. 3SP 82.2
YET
“We must learn of Christ. We must know what He is to those He has ransomed. We must realize that through belief in Him it is our privilege to be partakers of the divine nature, and so escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. Then we are cleansed from ALL sin, ALL defects of character. We need not RETAIN ONE SINFUL PROPENSITY”…. [Ephesians 2:1-6 quoted.] ... - {7BC 943.1}
The above proves “propensities” can mean that which we’ve “acquired” AND THANK GOD, CAN OVERCOME COMPLETELY. Jesus did not partake of our evil propensities because it was NEVER acquired and cultivated in His life. On THIS POINT Jesus WAS NOT LIKE US. I made this clear in the Nature of Christ Study.
Jesus did however have a nature that wants to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants (Matthew 26:36-46) this is the foundation of all temptation to sin.
We are not tempted to sleep because of weariness, eat because of hunger, or drink because we’re thirsty. These are all human weaknesses, but I believe according to Hebrews 2:17 Jesus doesn’t just relate with us in these weaknesses but also in having a nature that left to itself, desires to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants. Again, Matthew 26:36-46 proves this is so. YET, He never once surrendered to the call of the sinful nature because He had the divine nature as well.
According to 2 Peter 1:4, this is the example He has set for us, and I’m glad about this. If ou believe in prayer for people like me, then please do so, but hopefully your mind can be open that maybe Gods trying to tell you something.
Maranatha
@@jkkjlemon ........... .First, let me say, my purpose here is to attack your theological view and not to attack you personally. But as an SDA for 50 years, with an education in theology, it is my duty to confront your theology, because it is not only wrong, but detrimental to the members.
You start your response to me by saying, scripture does not encourage us to trust in scholars or commentaries, yet you use the 1828 version of the dictionary to prove a point. A dictionary written by a scholar who learned 26 languages and graduated from Yale and spent 28 years compiling the dictionary. So, is there a little bit of contradiction here.
God did not use illiterates to advance his work, Paul was a scholar and so was Moses and they wrote more scripture than any other man. And Jesus spent 3.5 years educating the disciples, so ignorance was not one of the qualifications for discipleship. One of the gifts of the spirit is teaching (Eph. 4:11), therefore, to teach, you must have students and you must be educated. So, we all needed a teacher at some point in our SDA growth and you are no exception. But regardless of how you came to your conclusion on the nature of Christ - you have been taught wrong.
I encouraged you to read Dr. Roy Adams and Dr. Woodrow Whidden, but you declined because you think you cannot be taught and have nothing to learn. Both Whidden and Dr. Raoul Dederen had your view but later changed it. Dr. Walter Veith and Morris Vendon also share my view. And SDA scholar, LeRoy Froom, said, those who hold to the postlapsarian view belong to the "lunatic fringe."
You also state, that Non-SDA's would be more favorable to you because you do not rely on scholars but the bible only. But would this logic also apply to medicine or science? Do we applaud and trust illiteracy. Without scholars who would translate the bible for us and teach us how to deal with the challenges of linguistics. All the reformers were gifted scholars as Luther and Calvin, and please do not see an exception as the rule.
You give me the impression you rely on your own wisdom more so than the wisdom of many, as Proverbs suggests. I have noticed the disposition in Pastors to reject constructive criticism, humility is preached but seldom practiced. As it is said - we read to teach but seldom to learn.
You also criticized the spirit of my approach as offensive. But did not Jesus in Mt.23: 24 call the Pharisees - blind guides, and that is what you are. So, why is truth offensive? Why have you not taken a humble attitude and asked yourself if God has sent me into your life to reconsider your position. You appear to preach these sentiments but you don't practice them. Isaiah 56 says - the shepherds are blind, asleep, ignorant and are a dumb dogs, now that is offensive yet inspired criticism.
The translation of a word is dependent on context, so you have chosen the wrong definition for propensity. for the sake of brevity I will close. But let me finish with this - if Jesus had to be just like us then we should have to be just like him, and we were not. If he was born with no propensity then we should also have the same type of birth. Plus, Christ could not sin even once, or be lost, yet we can sin a 1000 times and be forgiven and saved. I hate to see a sincere man as yourself so deceived by this divisive teaching. I hope you will have the humility and maturity to read Adams and Whidden. I have read that the sign of an intellectual is that he is introspective and self-critical.
@@DavidKing-qd3sp You don't understand where I'm coming from and its because of your prejudice. I can summarize my disagreement with you in one verse "Cursed be the man who puts his trust in man" Jeremiah 17:5. There it is. I never denied listening to teachers, and all the other rhetoric you have shared. You totally misconstrued my sentiments and sadly, THIS is what Satan does. I don't put my TRUST in scholars, and nowhere in scripture are we encouraged to do so. I have studied with MANY sharing BOTH SIDES of their views. AGAIN, you're mean, rude, and disrespectful. You cannot win souls with this ugly method you have chosen. You don't know me and your FIRST introduction of yourself was not "hello Brother, I disagree with your points and would like to talk about it. What's the best way to reach you?" You immediately launched in with categorization, prejudice, and insults. Worst off, you actually believe this is how the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and our Savior dealt with people? It borders on Blasphemy to make such an assertion!
Your attitude in this disagreement shows me (and others reading it) more than enough of your so called deep understanding of the gospel after 50 years. It is possible to practice something in a WRONG way for 50 years and become really good at doing something WRONG. My point? Just because you did something for a long period of time, does not mean in and of itself your position is correct. Ask the Rabbis that were "older" than Jesus.
At this point we have to agree to disagree. I don't see my ability to reason with you. The message speaks for itself and I believe a balanced view has been given. At this point I will cease discussion. I trust Jesus' words in John 10. His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him. Please remember we are to "love" even our enemies, and the FIRST lesson in love is it is "kind" 1 Corinthians 13:4.
Even if I changed my position, it would be in spite of you rather than because of God using you. THIS sir, should concern you since you're such a "seasoned" gospel worker. Please before letting pride respond, think about whats being shared. Take care
@@jkkjlemon ...........Dwayne - I Understand where you are coming from -YOU DON'T....to refuse to read those 2 books and reexamine your position is not the sign of Wisdom or spiritual maturity
@@jkkjlemon you criticize commentaries yet you use the pulpit commentary - have you ever heard of consistency in thought or belief...I have to show your hypocrisy
DWAYNE-----are you unable to interpret Daniel 9.24 -to seal the vision and prophecy as i have asked you several times...that is a simple SDA teaching and you are the scholar???
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t recall a question along these lines
@@jkkjlemon I have asked you several times - if you read my emails - to give me your view of the phrase in Daniel 9 . to seal up the vision and prophecy...can you do that and you can be very brief
OMG These comments 😂😂 David King Stoop harrassing Pastor Dwayne !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pushing the truth forward is not harassment ...Dwayne is someone who is blind to the truth of Christ's nature - and to say nothing would be wrong...
@@DavidKing-qd3sp my dear it starts to look that way when ur approach is hostile and you start calling someone dogmatic and all. don't u believe when someone is sincerely seeking truth the lord will reveal it ?Amos 3:7. the attitude should not be " what i believe against what u believe" but "let"s reason together and explain to me why u interpret things this way". The spirit behind ur approach is not good and does not help but hardens someone especially when u keep insisting on it. it frankly looks like an argument and based on ur arguments u have more of references outside the Bible too.There is always a way to disagree without being disagreeable , the worst u could do is insist ur vast knowledge on youtube and say stuff like " i had to correct pastor doug on the same issue" . Pray for God to help you with other ways you can share ur views without sounding like uhhhh......like that. we are all saints under construction . lets help each other in love. You take care David
@@praiseshumba7295 ...........I showed Dwayne from SDA/bible sources where he is wrong but he rejected my input. So, i cannot sit back and watch him and Doug and Dennis Priebe and others mislead people into error and fanaticism...Christ called the Pharisees many things so name calling is biblical - it is not disrespectful as it is factual - and yes i am dogmatic or else i would not be an SDA....and if you agree with their view you are wrong also....and by the way - i have corrected Doug many times and he has acknowledged my corrections as helpful...Jesus said he came to send a sword not a feather...Luther was no pacifist...the Lord will always reveal the truth but people will not always see it or embrace it...so i push the truth forward...even JAck Sequeira had it wrong
@@praiseshumba7295 .........you ask for scripture for my position so here goes - When Christ came he delighted in the law of God to obey it Psalm 40. 8 ---- when we were born we hated the law of God with our full being Romans 8.7....Ephesians 2.3 we are the children of wrath - Psalm 58. 3 the wicked go astray from birth...and here is a quote by our pioneers...from 7A -SDABC page 924 ...Christ vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory...if you cannot see this quote clarifying the issue then you nenevr will - and I could give you another 50 quotes ..read 1128 Vol 5. SDABC or 2T.202....this false view causes people to focus on self, the law and sin...and it leaves you with guilt and a sense of incompleteness
@@DavidKing-qd3sp i did not say sit by. i said there are better ways of approaching this . since you mentioned a lot of ministers believe this have you even thought of sending this as an issue that needs attention to the higher authorities even up to the GC. and you r not even leaving the possibility of the fact that u could be wrong but everybody is wrong and u r ryt. don't argue with individuals , there are better ways of getting points across without trying to sound like you know everything. Jesus was perfect and He did know everything so in that regard you can't use Jesus as ur scape goat because you do not have the power to perceive anyone's spirit or thoughts. maybe they just needed a bit more proof and were trying to understand but u started calling them names. you just aren't doing it right and the sad thing is u can't see that , so u gonna keep doing all that till u get frustrated and leave the church and start ur own where "truth" is preached . this is where this is going.
YOU PEOPLE - who have never studied the nature of Christ can be convinced to believe anything...the view presented here by Pr. Dwayne - is not only wrong but dangerous.
David, you have to let people study for themselves. You’re way too dogmatic about what you believe. There’s mounting evidence for both sides of the study and it equites Christlike patience when we differ.
You have failed on this point, and have allowed the world to see.
You’ve expressed your disagreement, provided your interpretations, and referred your books. You have done your work.
Now leave it to God to allow us to be settled in the truth as it is in Jesus.
Stop the insulting, demeaning, rude, commentaries. It’s absolutely KILLING your so called “witness”.
I hope you will cease and desist.
@@jkkjlemon .....I have not attempted to attack you personally but if you feel that I have then I apologize to you....
send me your view od Daniel 9: 24 regarding - to seal vision and prophecy
@@jkkjlemon ......Dwayne - if I should let people study for themselves - why don't you do the same and present both views and allow people to make up their own mind - but you are DOGMATIC in your position as i am with mine....so live what you preach ---
DWAYNE.....You say - "Christ had a nature that wants to do what self wants to do rather than what God wants.. this is the foundation of all temptation to sin.".and you quote MT.26. 23-26
But John 6: 38 says " I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me." And Psalm 40: 7-8 says - "I come in the volume of this book - it is written of me - I DELIGHT to do thy will - thy law is within my heart" and heart here as you have said before means -Nature. And in this context it does.
Our mind / heart / nature - is at enmity with God - we hate righteousness and God's law....So, please reevaluate your understanding of the nature of Christ --- and when one preaches or teaches -one needs to be correct -also known as -Dogmatic.
TEXT : jOHN 5. 30...I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me...6. 38... I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.. Ps. 40.8 I delight to do thy will - thy law is written on my heart /nature
So Dwayne, Christ did not have a will in opposition to God's will as you said...reevaluate your view
If you have never studied this topic then you cannot be sure who is right because you are just choosing sides...anybody can twist scripture and EGW to say anything - What is being taught here is WRONG....to prove it yourself read - Roy Adams -- the nature of Christ...or Woodrow Whidden - the humanity of Christ
Christ was sinless with 4000 of inherited weaknesses but not sinfulness
Yes and please read the book Face to Face with the Real Gospel by Dennis Priebe
@@jkkjlemon ..........I read that book twice maybe even 3 times...What a tragedy - you read the wrong authors and came to the wrong conclusion...amazing that you are not perceptive - in-tune with the holy spirit....you walk in a darkness that you cannot see. I read Adams twice, whidden twice, Sequeria twice, Davis, Crews, ministry magazine on that topic and other articles and maybe a book or 2 more....and the Spirit of prophecy....So did Dr. Walter Veith, and he agrees with me...
Did you get your education at an independent school like Uchee pines ?
How about Daniel 9.24...to seal vision and prophecy???
@@jkkjlemon .......only a narrow mind reads one side of the argument....you are naive, sorry! You express the same mentality that I often see in - JW's....I cannot read anything that may challenge me....as I am one of the 144,000...lol
Dwayne, The local Pastor here in my area would not allow Priebe to speak in his churches and he Pastored the largest church....I feel sorry for you, a man who was sure he was right but was wrong and could not see it...Romans 10. 2....Zeal without Knowledge
Pr. Dwayne - you give me the impression that you were influenced by a factious group within Adventism - you have bought into - last generation theology - along with the wrong view for the nature of Christ - and I would venture to say - you are so far into that mind-set that you probably will never come out...and I have not yet considered the ramifications of that for you...but it does show a misguided mind and the absence of truth and the spirit of truth.
For your own sake I hope you will do a reevaluation of your theology....you are a very capable person but somehow your early experiences and influences have led you down the wrong road - and I only wish you the best. Just because a few prominent Pastors hold your view it does not make it right - as some of our top scholars have been wrong - like Ford, and he led hundreds of ministers out of the church...be open minded -prove all things...read Adams.
Thank you. I will continue to follow 2 Timothy 2:15. Again, thank you.
FINAL QUOTE - sinful nature does not refer to a state of sinfulness, but can, and is best understood to refer to the degenerative infirmities of Adam's sinful nature that were the result of sin....but not sinful within itself - fear is from the fruit of sin but it is not a sin to be fearful or have anxiety. So, Christ was weaker in physical strength, mental power and moral worth, but they in themselves is not a sin but the fruit or effects of sin...and Christ took these weakened sinful infirmities in his human nature...And for some very strange reason - Pr. Dwayne cannot comprehend that truth.
So let me give you a better quote to prove Dwayne is wrong....Christ defeated Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory...Vol 7A, SDABC page 924 - quote for Hebrews 2.......so Christ had the same nature as Adam did in Eden and that was sinless....Beware of this false teaching
WRONG....the view presented here is wrong - Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall - he came as Adam was yet weaker through the law of heredity - but not in sinfulness - he was weaker than Adam in physical strength - mental power and moral worth...most independant ministries have this wrong Walter Veith has it right....5% of SDA's have Pr. Dwaynes view...see da. 117 plus 49
The Bible is clear Jesus had a sinful nature as well. Romans 8:3 and Romans 1:3.
Ellen White emphatically states that Jesus took on our sinful nature.
Decide for yourselves folks. Believe David King, or the Bible.
I’ve made my decision.
The Bible clearly states Jesus had our sinful nature. Romans 8:3, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:16
Ellen White says: He took upon His sinless nature our SINFUL NATURE, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. - {MM 181.3}
Christ had BOTH a sinless nature AND sinful nature.
Jesus did NOT just have a sinless nature.
He came to this world as we are born again. When we’re born again we retain our sinful nature but we also become partakers of the Divine Nature as well.
THIS is the truth
@@jkkjlemon .......A sinful nature does not automatically mean he sinned or had sinful propensities - it means in contrast to Adam he took on the effects of sinfulness but not sin itself...so it is all a matter of interpretation and understanding....Jesus was weaker than Adam in physical strength but that is not sin in itself but it is the effect of sin - so it is the effects of sin EGW is talking about as they were the result of sin but not sinful---- as I said Christ came to prove God's law could be kept by Adam even in a weaker condition than Adam ...but he was the 2nd Adam...the Great Controversy is between Christ and Satan not Satan and man....Sorry, But Pr. Dwayne has it wrong. Christ was born a holy thing Luke1.35 we are born carnal sold unto sin
@@jkkjlemon .........You take one statement by EGW or scripture and ignore the rest, such as, he was not like other children - he had no sinful propensity but Adams posterity did...his nature recoiled form evil....and do you think scholars within Adventism are ignorant of truth...unless we challenge our beliefs they cannot stand with certainty, it is wise to face all views
@@jkkjlemon Romans 1.3 is just identifying Jesus as coming from the line of David it is not about his nature...neither are the genealogies like Mt.1...Christ had to be shown to come from David's line. and if the law could not justify or produce righteousness in 8. 3 and Christ did as the only man then he had to be different for it says - what the law "could not do.'