Part 2: Sin and the Savior

What follows is Part 2 of a continuing response by the present writer to two lectures opposing Last Generation Theology which were delivered at the recent “Called” conference in Lexington, Kentucky, sponsored by the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This article will address issues raised by the lecturers in question relative to the nature of sin and the human nature of Christ.

Again we remind our readers that the lectures in question are referenced in the form of audio recordings, and thus each reference at the article’s close identifies the point in time during the lecture when each statement was made. Those wishing to verify the referenced statements must both click on the link in this article to the online recordings, in addition to checking the references in question at the close of this article for the point in time (minutes and seconds) when the statement occurs.

The Nature of Sin

One of the two lecturers defines sin as “a bent disposition of the human condition with unchosen propensities toward evil,” making “all so infected . . . in need of a Savior” [1].

The problem arises with the use of the word “infected.” All in the present discussion agree that humanity’s inheritance of a fallen nature necessitates the intervention of supernatural power to subdue that nature, power which only a divine Savior can give. But nowhere does the inspired text define sin as a disease with which people are “infected” apart from choice. The consensus of the inspired text does not identify the inherited sinful nature as synonymous with sin itself.

The same lecturer cites such verses as Jeremiah 17:9 and Romans 6:6; 7:14-20 as allegedly affirming the involuntary nature of human sin [2]. But while each of these verses speak of enslavement to sin, none describe sin as an unchosen condition. The apostle Paul in the book of Romans is especially clear that the desires of the flesh can be denied through the Holy Spirit’s power, and that Jesus in His incarnation has shown how this is done (Rom. 8:3-4). Jesus, according to Paul, was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), and in His humanity “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). The flesh as described in Romans 8, in which Jesus condemned sin, clearly represents a human nature hostile to the will of God (verses 4-13).

We will address the subject of Jesus’ humanity at greater length as this article proceeds. But Paul’s description of humanity’s fleshly nature in Romans chapter 8, and his affirmation that in just such a nature Jesus “condemned sin” (Rom. 8:3), offers decisive evidence that the mere possession of such a nature doesn’t make one an automatic sinner.

This particular lecturer claims that Ellen White concurs with the involuntary definition of human sin when she writes, “It is impossible for us, of ourselves, to escape from the pit of sin in which we are sunken. Our hearts are evil, and we cannot change them” [##3|Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 18.##]. He then states that it is no more possible for us to change our sinful natures than for the leopard to change its spots (Jer. 13:23) [4]. But again, neither of these inspired statements identify the sinful state being described as acquired at birth or otherwise existing apart from the sinner’s choice. We will discuss this point in greater depth in our discussion of the humanity of Christ, but Ellen White is clear that in our present human nature, which of course is fallen, God expects us to obey His commandments through the same power Jesus used:

The Lord now demands that every son and daughter of Adam, through faith in Jesus Christ, serve Him in human nature which we now have. The Lord Jesus has bridged the gulf that sin has made. He has connected earth with heaven, and finite man with the infinite God. Jesus, the world’s Redeemer, could only keep the commandments of God in the same way that humanity can keep them [##5|White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929.##].

The other lecturer uses such Bible passages as Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:1, Romans 5:19, and Romans 7:16-20 as proof that all are born sinners [6]. But in fact, none of these passages teach that anyone is a sinner because of birth. Ephesians 2:1-5 speaks of sin exclusively as conduct; its statement that we are “by nature deserving of wrath” in no way implies that our sins are the result of anything but choice. There is no reference to birth as the source of sin in this passage.

“Nature” in the inspired writings does not always refer to an inborn condition. Ellen White in particular speaks in many passages of “nature” as a synonym for character [##7|White, The Desire of Ages, p. 391; Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 133; Messages to Young People, p. 35; Counsels to Teachers, p. 266; Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 258; vol. 5, p. 235; Our High Calling, p. 278.##], while in other statements she speaks of “nature” in terms of our inherited equipment [##8|——The Desire of Ages, p. 122; Ministry of Healing, p. 428; The Adventist Home, p. 205; Education, p. 29; Counsels on Health, p. 544.##]. Context tells the difference. It helps to remember Ellen White’s description of the varied uses of inspired language: “Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea” [##9|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 20.##].

Romans 5:19, like other verses in this chapter, doesn’t teach that anyone’s status as righteous or sinful is involuntary. When it states that “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” it is telling us that just as the many being made sinners has occurred because “all have sinned” (verse 12), just as verse 17 declares that those “who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ,” so the many being made righteous in verse 19 is depicted as a future event determined by the choice of individuals.

In context, Paul states that Adam’s transgression has caused death—eternal death, in context—to pass upon all humanity “for that all have sinned” (verse 12). The summary of this passage simply states that while Adam has led the world into sin, Christ has offered to lead us out of it. In her own commentary on the language of Romans 5, Ellen White is clear that righteousness and sin as described in this chapter are received by choice:

Human beings have degenerated. One after another they fall under the curse, because sin has entered into the world, and death by sin. . . . We may choose God’s way and live; we may choose our own way, and know that sin has entered into the world, and death by sin [##10|——Signs of the Times, June 27, 1900.##].

The apostle James writes that “every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then lust, when it hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin” (James 1:14-15). This certainly offers evidence that the mere urge to sin does not constitute sin itself. Ellen White agrees:

There are thoughts and feelings suggested and aroused by Satan that annoy even the best of men; but if they are not cherished, if they are repulsed as hateful, the soul is not contaminated with guilt and no other is defiled by their influence [##11|——That I May Know Him, p. 140.##].

Elsewhere the same author is clear that no one is ever forced to commit sin:

No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must be first gained, the soul must purpose the sinful act, before passion can dominate over reason, or iniquity triumph over conscience [##12|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 177.##].

It is not in the power of Satan to force anyone to sin. Sin is the sinner’s individual act. Before sin exists in the heart, the consent of the will must be given, and as soon as it is given, sin is triumphant, and hell rejoices [##13|——Signs of the Times, Dec. 18, 1893.##].

The light of life is freely proffered to all. Every one who will may be guided by the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness. Christ is the great remedy for sin. None can plead their circumstances, their education, or their temperament as an excuse for living in rebellion against God. Sinners are such by their own deliberate choice [##14|——From the Heart, p. 151.##].

Psalm 51:5 simply affirms that David, like the rest of us, was born into a sinful world—though we find it interesting that David doesn’t apply this statement to all humanity, only to himself. But the verse doesn’t say, “I was shapen as a doer of iniquity, and as a sinner did my mother conceive me.” It simply says David was brought forth into an environment dominated by sin. He was not an involuntary sinner. Indeed, elsewhere David is clear that we need not commit iniquity if we walk in the ways of the Lord and hide His law in our hearts (Psalm 119:1-3,11).

The same lecturer cites Romans 7:16-20 as proof that sin is “a state in which we are born” [15]. But nothing in this passage says anything about birth. Rather, it is describing the condition of the unconverted but convicted person who, because of having chosen to transgress the divine law, is helpless against sin apart from the power of Christ. Romans 8:1-13 and Galatians 5:24 make it clear that this condition of bondage to sin is broken by the Spirit’s transformation and the resulting crucifixion of the flesh.

“Prevenient grace” (that which invites us to come to God) is identified by the same lecturer as what the believer needs because he is dead in sin [16]. True enough, but the sinner isn’t declared by Scripture to be dead in sin because he was born that way. The Bible never teaches this.

The same lecturer quotes Ezekiel 36:26-27, and the following chapter regarding the dry bones, as proof that we need the Holy Spirit to live holy lives [17]. Again, we all agree here. But nothing in these chapters speaks of sin as an inborn state. There is a reason Seventh-day Adventists don’t baptize babies, and that’s because we don’t believe in original sin.

The other lecturer states at the start of his discussion of this topic that if sin is only a matter of choice, “one might become sinless by the force of their will” [18]. But the Bible is clear that only through divine power can humanity’s fallen nature be subdued (John 15:5; Rom. 8:13; Phil. 4:13), and that Jesus came to earth in our nature to show us how to do it (Rom. 8:3-4; I Peter 2:21-22). Moreover, Ellen White is clear—in a statement that neatly connects the issues of the nature of sin and the human nature of Christ—that the reason we know humanity is not “by nature totally and wholly depraved” is because of what Jesus proved in His incarnation:

As we see the condition of mankind today, the question arises in the minds of some, “Is man by nature totally and wholly depraved?” Is he hopelessly ruined? No, he is not. The Lord Jesus left the royal courts and, taking our human nature, lived such a life as everyone may live in humanity, through following His example. We may perfect a life in this world which is an example of righteousness, and overcome as Christ has given us an example in His life, revealing that humanity may conquer as He, the great Pattern conquered [##19|White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, p. 238.##].

The Human Nature of Christ

One is astounded at the way one of these lecturers criticizes Last Generation Theology for teaching that “the fact that Christ never sinned demonstrates that humans might also overcome sin and achieve perfect sinlessness” [20]. But regardless of this man’s opinion, or anyone else’s, this is precisely the teaching of Holy Scripture:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:3-4).

Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in His steps, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth (I Peter 2:21-22; see also Isa. 53:9).

This sinless, guileless condition is depicted elsewhere in Scripture as identifying the Last Generation of believers (Zeph. 3:13; Rev. 14:5). Ellen White reflects the above Bible passages in her repeated insistence that Christ’s example in sinless living can and must be reproduced in the lives of His people:

Men and women frame many excuses for their proneness to sin. Sin is represented as a necessity, an evil that cannot be overcome. But sin is not a necessity. Christ lived in this world from infancy to manhood, and during that time He met and resisted all the temptations by which man is beset. He is a perfect pattern of childhood, of youth, of manhood [##21|White, The Faith I Live By, p. 219.##].

Christ came to this world to show that by receiving power from on high, man can live an unsullied life [##22|——Ministry of Healing, p. 25.##].

Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was [##23|——The Desire of Ages, p. 664.##].

By His own obedience to the law, Christ testified to its immutable character and proved that through His grace it could be perfectly obeyed by every son and daughter of Adam [##24|——Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 49.##].

We will address the issue of sinless obedience at greater length as this series continues. But the above statements, along with the testimony of Scripture (Rom. 8:3-4; I Peter 2:21-22; I John 3:2-3; Rev. 3:21), should be sufficient to demonstrate that the claim of Last Generation Theology—denounced by the lecturers in question—that “the fact that Christ never sinned demonstrates that humans might also overcome sin and achieve perfect sinlessness” [25], is firmly based on the witness of the inspired pen.

The lecturer quoted above falsely accuses Last Generation Theology of teaching that “in order to be fully human one must inherit the sinful condition” [26]. He correctly states that Adam and Eve were in fact “fully human” before they fell [27], and that, therefore, full humanity does not require the presence of a fallen, sinful nature [28]. But this is not the point of dispute in the modern Adventist Christology debate. Rather, the point of dispute is whether Jesus needed to inherit the same fallen nature inherited by other post-Fall humans in order to give a relevant example of sinless obedience. Again we note Ellen White’s very clear statement as to the kind of human nature in which God presently demands obedience:

The Lord now demands that every son and daughter of Adam, through faith in Jesus Christ, serve Him in human nature which we now have. The Lord Jesus has bridged the gulf that sin has made. He has connected earth with heaven, and finite man with the infinite God. Jesus, the world’s Redeemer, could only keep the commandments of God in the same way that humanity can keep them [##29|White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929.##].

The lecturer cited above insists that “unlike other humans, Jesus could truly declare, the devil ‘has nothing in Me’ (John 14:30)” [30]. But Ellen White is clear that human beings who partake of the Holy Spirit’s transforming power can in fact achieve this selfsame condition:

“The prince of this world cometh,” said Jesus, “and hath nothing in Me” John 14:30. There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan’s sophistry. He did not consent to sin. Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So it may be with us [##31|White, The Desire of Ages, p. 123.##].

Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.” John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father’s commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble [##32|——The Great Controversy, p. 623.##].

Thus, Jesus’ declaration that Satan could find “nothing in Him,” that there was “no sin in Him” that Satan could use to his advantage, means neither consenting to sin nor cherishing sinful desires. No inspired statement uses these phrases to refer to the absence of such desires in one’s inherited fleshly nature. Choice, not birth-nature, is what enabled Jesus to declare that “the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me” (John 14:30). And while, because only God knows our hearts (I Kings 8:39), even perfectly sanctified Christians won’t be able to make this statement about themselves [##33|——Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 355; The Faith I Live By, p. 140.##]—a point we will address in greater depth as this series proceeds—what is clear from Ellen White’s use of Jesus’ statement in John 14:30 is that it refers to chosen and cherished sin, not to the mere presence of inherited fallen urges.

The same lecturer [34] quotes an Ellen White statement which speaks of our Lord’s humanity as “perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” [##35|White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.##]. But never does Ellen White describe human nature as tainted with sin by birth. She writes elsewhere, concerning Jesus, that “He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family” [##36|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 925.##]. But when we consider other statements where Ellen White uses this language, it becomes clear that His being “born without a taint of sin” simply means that He came from heaven pure, not that He wasn’t born with fallen human urges. In her words:

What a sight was this for Heaven to look upon? Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition [##37|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 253.##].

Though He had no taint of sin upon His character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity [##38|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 134.##].

Nowhere does Ellen White say anyone is tainted with sin just by being born. What is significant is how Ellen White also insists that sanctified Christians—who are described in her writings as retaining their fallen natures till Christ returns [##39|——Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Prophets and Kings, p. 84; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 1032; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 33; From the Heart, p. 297.##]—are to have hearts and minds cleansed from every taint of sin:

Brethren and sisters, we need the reformation that all who are redeemed must have, through the cleansing of mind and heart from every taint of sin. In the lives of those who are ransomed by the blood of Christ, self-sacrifice will constantly appear. Goodness and righteousness will be seen. The quiet, inward experience will make the life full of godliness, faith, meekness, patience. This is to be our daily experience. We are to form characters free from sin—characters made righteous in and by the grace of Christ. . . . Our hearts are to be cleansed from all impurity in the blood shed to take away sin [##40|——Counsels on Health, pp. 633-634.##].

We therefore can see, from the testimony of Ellen White, that freedom from every taint of sin is not incompatible with the possession of a fallen human nature. And lest some assume that the cleansing here described as occurring through Jesus’ blood refers to justifying righteousness only, it should be remembered that according to the Bible, the blood of Jesus is the agent not only of our justification, or forgiveness (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), but also of our sanctification (Heb. 10:29; 13:12,20-21). Character cleansing through the blood of Jesus, not forgiveness, is the subject of the above Ellen White statement.

In his reference to another Ellen White statement, the same lecturer repeats the misrepresentation of Ellen White found three times in the book God’s Character and the Last Generation [##41|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), pp. 166,167,276.##], in which an Ellen White statement is quoted partially so as to convey a totally false impression [42]. Here is the way the statement is quoted by the lecturer in question:

We must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity or that He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. . . Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted [##43|White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.##].

But as is done three times in the book quoted above [##44|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, pp. 166,167,276.##], the lecturer in question doesn’t permit Ellen White to finish the last sentence of the above quotation. Here is the complete sentence:

Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God [##45|White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182 (italics supplied).##].

So what does she mean when she says Jesus never had the same corrupt propensities we have? Simple. She means He never chose to sin. Notice she doesn’t say His nature wouldn’t be corrupted unless He was born with the same nature other humans are born with. Rather, the corruption here described would occur only if He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God. Choice, not birth, is the source of the corruption here described.

Interestingly, in the context of the above statement, Ellen White declares: “Christ’s perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ” [##46|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 181.##]. And it helps to keep in mind that according to the same author, human beings will retain their inherited fallen natures till Christ returns [##47|——Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Prophets and Kings, p. 84; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 1032; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 33; From the Heart, p. 297.##]. Which means that to acquire our Lord’s perfect humanity through connection with Him is in no way incompatible with possessing a fallen nature which through heaven’s power must be resisted.

The same lecturer goes on [48] to quote Ellen White’s statement that Christ “is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions” [##49|White, Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 201-202.##]. But unfortunately, this lecturer makes no reference to other Ellen White statements which speak of Christ very much having to contend with fallen human passions, an omission which relieves the lecturer of the necessity of finding harmony between two sets of apparently contrary statements. The following Ellen White statements are entirely left out of this lecturer’s comments and those of his colleague:

Though He (Christ) had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield to temptation to do one single act which was not pure and elevating and ennobling [##50|——In Heavenly Places, p. 155.##].

The words of Christ encourage parents to bring their little ones to Jesus. They may be wayward, and possess passions like those of humanity, but this should not deter us from bringing them to Christ. He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own [##51|——Signs of the Times, April 9, 1896.##].

By a word Christ could have mastered the powers of Satan. But He came into the world that He might endure every test, every provocation, that it is possible for human beings to bear and yet not be provoked or impassioned, or retaliate in word, in spirit, or in action [##52|——Christ Triumphant, p. 260.##].

Satan sought to tempt Christ not only to indulge the grosser passions and to yield to appetite, but he appealed to His ambition. Notwithstanding the enemy’s determined efforts, Christ did not manifest a grasping spirit to gain possession of the kingdoms of this world [##53|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, p. 113.##].

Anyone who doubts that the word “grosser” in the above statement refers to something bad, need only consult other Ellen White references which use this word, which most assuredly refer to bad things [##54|——Acts of the Apostles, pp. 244,427,503; Child Guidance, p. 441.##]. “Grosser passions,” in other words, definitely refer in Ellen White’s vocabulary to wicked passions, not neutral ones.

So how do we discover the inspired harmony between these statements regarding Jesus and fallen passions, together with statements like the famous Baker letter of 1895 [##55|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128-1129.##], also noted by the lecturer in question [56]? We have already seen one example of how this harmony is found, in the statement quoted earlier regarding Christ’s human nature being “fallen but not corrupted.” Let’s look at the statement again:

We must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and that He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. . . .

Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God [##57|White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.##].

Notice how, in context, Jesus not possessing “the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man” refers to the fact that He never “received the words of Satan in place of the words of God.” As we noted earlier, choice is the decisive issue here. Moreover, we must understand the Biblical evidence for lower and higher forces within human nature (Matt. 26:41; I Cor. 9:27), together with Ellen White’s affirmation of the existence of these forces [##58|——Ministry of Healing, p. 130; Christ’s Object Lessons, pp. 114,354; Counsels on Health, pp. 41-42; The Adventist Home, pp. 127-128; Messages to Young People, p. 237; Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 491; vol. 5, p. 335; Review and Herald, Aug. 11, 1887; Dec. 1, 1896.##]. She summarizes this reality very simply when she writes: “The will is not the taste or the inclination, but it is the deciding power” [##59|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 513.##].

This distinction is what enables her to speak in certain statements of our controlling evil passions and propensities [##60|——Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 235; Ministry of Healing, p. 130.##], while speaking in other statements of casting these out [##61|——Evangelism, p. 347; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 171-172; Messages to Young People, p. 42.##]. Thus we begin to see the harmony between Ellen White saying in certain statements that Jesus did possess fallen passions and propensities [##62|——In Heavenly Places, p. 155; Signs of the Times, April 9, 1896; Christ Triumphant, p. 260; Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, p. 113; Testimonies, vol. 4, pp. 216,235.##], while saying in other statements that He did not [##63|——Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 201=202,509; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128-1129; Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.##].

The difference is between urges resisted and urges exhibited. The former Jesus inherited, just as you and I inherit them. But the latter He did not possess, because in order to possess them He would have had to yield to them. Which He did not, through the same power available to you and to me. Hence she can write of how, when “[God’s] grace is implanted in the heart, it will cast out the evil passions that cause strife and dissension” [##64|——The Desire of Ages, p. 305.##], and that “we need not retain one sinful propensity” [##65|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 943.##].

It should be noted that these latter statements are not describing the experience of glorification at the second coming of Christ, at which time our fleshly urges will be eradicated [##66|——Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Prophets and Kings, p. 84; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 1032; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 33; From the Heart, p. 297.##]. Rather, these statements that assure us of not retaining evil passions and propensities refer in context to the earthly experience of conversion and sanctification.

One strangely unnoticed Ellen White statement, written to one in need of greater self-control, speaks of how Jesus gave us an example of how to deny wrongful inclinations:

God indicated that you should be educated to act a part in His cause; but it was necessary that your mind should be trained and disciplined to work in harmony with the plan of God. You could gain the required experience if you would; you had the privilege presented before you of denying your inclinations, as your Saviour had given you an example in His life [##67|——Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 216.##].

Lest any presume that the inclinations here described are benign, the previous paragraph is reproduced below:

You have not sufficiently felt your obligation to God for sparing your life. You have, for pettish reasons of your own, excused yourself time and again from religious duties which devolve upon us at all times and under all circumstances. Feelings of discouragement are no apology before God for the neglect of a single duty. You are not your own; you have been purchased by the blood of Christ. He claims all that you are capable of doing; your time and strength are not your own [##68|——Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 216.##].

Continuing in his effort to distinguish the human Christ from fallen humanity [69], the lecturer in question quotes the following Ellen White statement:

It is not correct to say, as many writers have said, that Christ was like all children. He was not like all children. . . . His inclination to right was a constant gratification to His parents. . . . No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by His companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and He refused decidedly [##70|——Youth’s Instructor, Sept. 8, 1898.##].

But again, the above reference leaves out crucial statements which clarify what Ellen White is saying. Here is the above statement with more of its context:

It is not correct to say, as many writers have said, that Christ was like all children. He was not like all children. Many children are misguided and mismanaged. But Joseph, and especially Mary, kept before them the remembrance of their child’s divine Fatherhood. Jesus was instructed in accordance with the sacred character of His mission. His inclination to right was a constant gratification to His parents. . . . No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by His companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and He refused decidedly [##71|——Youth’s Instructor, Sept. 8, 1898.##].

Notice she doesn’t say Jesus was unlike other children in the sense that He was born with a different nature than the rest of us. Rather, He was unlike other children in the sense that “many children are misguided and mismanaged,” which Jesus was not [##72|——Youth’s Instructor, Sept. 8, 1898.##]. And when she writes that “His inclination to right was a constant gratification to His parents” [##73|——Youth’s Instructor, Sept. 8, 1898.##], this clearly refers to the visible pattern of the choices He made, since these are the only inclinations—good or bad—that human observers can see. In no way does this statement deny the existence of an inner struggle with fleshly inclinations on the part of Jesus. It simply means the chosen direction of His life—the inclination of His words and deeds—made His parents happy.

The fact that this passage refers to the higher rather than the lower nature is also clear when Ellen White speaks of Jesus’ countenance “shining with animation” [##74|——Youth’s Instructor, Sept. 8, 1898.##]. What a countenance shines with—be it happiness and joy or evil and self-centeredness—is a matter of choice, not birth.

Of course, the last two sentences of the above statement should lead no one to conclude that the reason Jesus was able to resist temptation was because He was God in human flesh. Taken by itself, one might reach this conclusion from reading these words. But the inspired testimony must always be taken in its totality before doctrinal or moral conclusions are reached. When we consult other inspired statements, it becomes clear that the power Jesus utilized in saying No to temptation is fully available to the fallen sons and daughters of Adam:

Jesus revealed no qualifies, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was [##75|——The Desire of Ages, p. 664.##].

And again:

The obedience of Christ to His Father is the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan’s temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God’s holy law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God’s power to help in every emergency. Man is, through faith, to become a partaker in the divine nature, and to overcome every temptation wherewith he is beset.

The Lord now demands that every son and daughter of Adam, through faith in Jesus Christ, serve Him in human nature which we now have. The Lord Jesus has bridged the gulf that sin has made. He has connected earth with heaven, and finite man with the infinite God. Jesus, the world’s Redeemer, could only keep the commandments of God in the same way that humanity can keep them [##76|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929.##].

Finally, the other of the two lecturers insists that “Christ is the second Adam, not the second Moskala” [77]. But the collective witness of the inspired text does not connect Christ with Adam as a means of identifying our Lord’s inherited humanity. When speaking of His human ancestry, He is described as the Son of David and the Son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1). Never is He called the Son of Adam. The comparison of Christ with Adam found in Romans 5:12-19 and First Corinthians 15:22 refers to His position as the new Head of the human family, not to His inherited human nature. Adam brought sin and fell; Christ took Adam’s place by conquering sin and bringing salvation.

Biblical illustrations, like parables, are not intended to “stand on all fours.” To use Paul’s Adam/Christ analogy to prove what type of humanity Jesus took in His incarnation is like using the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) to prove what happens to people when they die.

Conclusion

Both sides in the current discussion agree that how we define sin makes all the difference in how the human nature of Christ and the requirements of the gospel are understood. We invite our readers to compare the lectures under review with the material contained in this and the other articles in this series, and to apply the Berean test (Acts 17:11) to all that is presented.

Our next article will consider the content of the lectures in question with regard to the issues of salvation and the atonement.

REFERENCES

1. John C. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 7:12. http://www.lastgenerationforchrist.org/articles

2. Ibid, 7:52.

3. Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 18.

4. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 8:19.

5. White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929.

6. Jiri Moskala, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 2, 13:40. http://www.lastgenerationforchrist.org/articles

7. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 391; Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 133; Messages to Young People, p. 35; Counsels to Teachers, p. 266; Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 258; vol. 5, p. 235; Our High Calling, p. 278.

8. ----The Desire of Ages, p. 122; Ministry of Healing, p. 428; The Adventist Home, p. 205; Education, p. 29; Counsels on Health, p. 544.

9. ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 20.

10. ----Signs of the Times, June 27, 1900.

11. ----That I May Know Him, p. 140.

12. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 177.

13. ----Signs of the Times, Dec. 18, 1893.

14. ----From the Heart, p. 151.

15. Moskala, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 2, 14:53.

16. Ibid, 15:17.

17. Ibid, 16:03.

18. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 7:13.

19. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, p. 238.

20. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 27:12.

21. White, The Faith I Live By, p. 219.

22. ----Ministry of Healing, p. 25.

23. ----The Desire of Ages, p. 664.

24. ----Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 49.

25. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 27:12.

26. Ibid, 27:40.

27. Ibid, 27:49.

28. Ibid, 28:00.

29. White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929.

30. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 29:52.

31. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 123.

32. ----The Great Controversy, p. 623.

33. ----Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 355.

34. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 30.00.

35. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 181.

36. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 925.

37. ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 253.

38. Ibid, vol. 3, p. 134.

39. ----Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Prophets and Kings, p. 84; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 1032; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 33; From the Heart, p. 297.

40. ----Counsels on Health, pp. 633-634.

41. Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), pp. 166,167,276.

42. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 30.12.

43. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.

44. Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), pp. 166,167,276.

45. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182 (italics supplied).

46. Ibid, p. 181.

47. ----Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Prophets and Kings, p. 84; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 1032; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 33; From the Heart, p. 297.

48. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 30.31.

49. White, Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 201-202.

50. ----In Heavenly Places, by 155.

51. ----Signs of the Times, April 9, 1896.

52. ----Christ Triumphant, p. 260.

53. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, p. 113.

54. ----Acts of the Apostles, pp. 244,427,503; Child Guidance, p. 441.

55. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128-1129.

56. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 31:27.

57. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.

58. ----Ministry of Healing, p. 130; Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 114; Counsels on Health, pp. 41-42; Adventist Home, pp. 127-128; Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 354; Messages to Young People, p. 237; Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 491; vol. 5, p. 335; Review and Herald, Aug. 11, 1887; Dec. 1, 1896.

59. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 513.

60. Ibid, vol. 4, p. 235; Ministry of Healing, p. 130.

61. ----Evangelism, p. 347; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 171-172; Messages to Young People, p. 42.

62. ----In Heavenly Places, p. 155; Signs of the Times, April 9, 1896; Christ Triumphant, p. 260; Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, p. 113; Testimonies, vol. 4, pp. 216,235.

63. ----Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 201-202; 509; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128-1129; Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.

64. ----The Desire of Ages, p. 305.

65. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 943.

66. ----Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Prophets and Kings, p. 84; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 1032; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 33; From the Heart, p. 297.

67. ----Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 216.

68. Ibid.

69. Peckham, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 1, 30:41.

70. White, Youth’s Instructor, Sept. 8, 1898.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid.

75. ----The Desire of Ages, p. 664.

76. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929.

77. Moskala, “God’s Character and the Last Generation,” Part 2, 11:00.

Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan