Historical Teachings on the
Human Nature Christ Took
in the Incarnation

An Offending Nature

This brings us to the fourth and last factual point to made in this paper. "that the attempted change in doctrine was considered by those who opposed that change as a switch to a teaching more compatible with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception." Waggoner addressed the issue with these words:

Did you ever hear of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception? And do you know what it is? … The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was born sinless. Why?—Ostensibly to magnify Jesus; really the work of the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men whom He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet.

Elder Huntington recognized in the doctrinal issue the Papal foundation upon which it was established:

In adopting the theory of sinless flesh, though its advocates have ever been loathe to admit it, they are nevertheless, unconsciously led into the papal error of the immaculate conception and other heresies of the Catholic Church. The theory of sinless flesh is pre-eminently papal—the foundation upon which the Catholic Church stands. Remove this, and the whole structure of the papacy, as a religion, falls to the ground.

The expression, "sinless flesh," is nowhere found in the Bible: Then why adopt such an expression . . . The record says that Christ was "made in the likeness of sinful flesh," (Rom. 8:3) "of the seed of David," (Rom. 1:3) "of the seed of Abraham" (Heb.2:16). Then let us believe that it was just that way without trying to spiritualize these plain declarations to suit a perverted fancy, and by so doing entangle ourselves in an inextricable web of inconsistencies.

About fifty years ago spiritual leaders within Adventism took doctrinal arguments concerning the human nature of Christ from Evangelical Protestantism. The Evangelical doctrine was simply a continuation of the dogma of Catholicism. The beginning of an ecumenical and traditional understanding of the doctrine of an unfallen and sinless human nature for Christ must begin with Mary and her place within Catholicism. So let’s turn to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

The term "the Immaculate Conception" refers to Mary’s initial stage of existence in the womb of her mother and not to Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb. However, the heart of the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary is about Jesus her son. With regard to Jesus, according to this doctrine, it was in his human nature to be pure, and right, and loving as the primary consequence of Mary’s immaculate conception. All His tendencies were towards goodness. His unconstrained life was holiness itself: He was "the holy child Jesus" because of Mary’s human nature, rather than by His faith in God. The prince of this world found in him no fuel for the flame which he desired to kindle because of the kind of human nature inherited from Mary. There was neither inclination, nor tendency in the direction of sin in Him because of a special miracle that made Mary’s flesh holy.

In discussing the human nature of Mary and consequently that of Jesus, emphasis is on the uniqueness and the differences between their nature and ours by the popes and the Magisterium (teaching authority).This is believed to a large extent by the laity of the Catholic Church as well.

Christ as man was made under the law; but he owed nothing to that law, for he was holy in His human nature. True, He was treated as if were a sinner, but only in the abstract. What we have in this doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary as it applies to Christ is perhaps best described in theoretical, academic, hypothetical, speculative terms. The central meaning shared by these adjectives is primarily with theories or hypotheses rather than practical considerations. The doctrine of an immaculate conception is based on or restricted to theory. It is neither practical, nor proven.

According to this teaching there were no tendencies in Mary towards evil in any form. In the rest of the human race there are always those tendencies because the taint of original sin is upon us. Consequently, the Sacramental Graces must be administered to the faithful for salvation by a priest. Another consequent of this doctrine is that the believer must govern himself and hold himself under stern restraint, or he shall rush headlong to destruction. Fallen nature tends to evil and needs to be held in by the faithful, as with bit and bridle. That person who can master himself is truly blessed and happy and (s)he can even earn merit that goes into the treasury of merit for others, as well as for themselves. If he can’t master himself he can take refuge in the Sacraments while he lives and finally he can expiate his sins in Purgatory after he dies.

It was not until December 8, 1854 that Pope Pius IX in his Encyclical defined Mary’s Immaculate Conception as an infallibly taught dogma of the Church. But the Pope did not pull this teaching out of thin air. There is a continuous history of belief in this teaching prior to his papal Bull. Mary was referred to as "holy," "innocent," "most pure," "intact," "immaculate" by many early writers such as Irenaeus, Ephraem and Ambrose.

Because of popular belief in the "Virgin Mary," Pius IX bypassed both Council and Magisterium in producing a new infallible dogma. By his own authority he pronounced as doctrine the Immaculate Conception of Mary, making the centuries old belief now incapable of error. All Catholics must accept this dogma. (In effect this declaration was a proclamation of papal infallibility. The pope now can impose infallible binding dogma upon all others, by his own authority, without consulting bishops or even a Council.)

Following are those sections of the original decree dealing with Mary and sinless human nature as issued by Pope Pius IX concerning the Immaculate Conception:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

In that document the pope further declared:

They [the church Fathers and Roman Pontiffs, predecessors of Pius IX, especially Sixtus IV, Paul V, and Gregory XV] testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel [sic] made.

According to Rome all Churches must receive this doctrine:

These truths, so generally accepted and put into practice by the faithful, indicate how zealously the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all Churches, has continued to teach this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. Yet the more important actions of the Church deserve to be mentioned in detail. For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity. It is the Church in which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other Churches must receive the tradition of the Faith.

The Assumption of Mary

There is a related doctrinal invention concerning Mary’s so-called immaculate conception. It is the Assumption of Mary from earth to heaven. In times past these two fantasies existed only in the minds of the wistful within Catholicism. However, both have been pronounced as dogma in papal Constitutional Bulls. Both declarations were responses to the popular sentiments of Catholic believers.

Following from the Catholic premise of Mary’s immaculately conceived human nature is the corollary doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Since she was created with a sinless human nature and consequently lived a sinless life, she could not possibly remain earthbound. So the bodily assumption of Mary to heaven had to follow both of necessity and of consistency. It follows directly from the doctrine of the so-called immaculately conceived nature of Mary. Mary was exempted from inherited degradation of original sin, and so it was most fitting that she should be exempted from corruption in the grave.

According to Catholic theology Mary was victorious over sin through her Immaculate Conception, over concupiscence (strong sexual desire) by her virginal motherhood, and over death by her so-called glorious Assumption.

And so it was that Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, of November 1, 1950, proclaimed this dogma in the following carefully-selected words:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we proclaim, declare and define as a dogma revealed by God: the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven.

Scriptural support is sought for in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but no Scripture authority is appealed to for her so-called Assumption. It is well known that there is none, in Catholic circles. It is based on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which some Catholics do feel is Scripturally sound. However, reduced to the basis of authority for existence, which is papal infallibility, it doesn’t matter if these, or other, teachings are found in Scripture. According to Catholic philosophy the Bible is merely part of the larger Christian tradition. Marian doctrines are not biblical, but they come under the so-called larger tradition category. It is crucial to understand that Catholics need only demonstrate a so-called harmony of a doctrine with Scripture. It is not their view that every doctrine of the Christian faith must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the Bible. Along with "Sacred Tradition" there is the authority of the Magisterium. A belief such as the Immaculate Conception claimed as implicitly biblical is not necessarily anti-biblical or un-biblical in Catholic thinking. They feel that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not only entirely possible, within their traditional and scriptural presuppositions, but that it is an infallible doctrine because it is so decreed by the papal Bull Ineffabilis Deus.

The common teaching in Catholic tradition is that Mary was free from stain of sin because she was impeccable in nature and thus incapable of sin. This is in order to preserve the sinlessness of human nature both of Mary and, ultimately, of Christ.

Rome teaches that Mary was like us in that she got hungry, thirsty, and tired as we do, but morally she was exempt from fallen human nature by the Holy Spirit through God’s grace and thus she was unique in the sinlessness of nature and of life. This, in turn, directly drives Rome’s doctrinal system especially concerning Christology and consequent soteriology.

Mary’s Similarity and Differences to Us

Mary had a "nature in common with them" meaning the rest of mankind. Notwithstanding that this statement alleges commonality of nature with us, in reality Marian doctrines are very careful to make clear the unbridgeable difference in essence between Mary and the rest of the fallen race. To them her sinlessness is "an entirely unique holiness." According to Catholic theology there is no difference in kind (human) between Mary and Jesus and us, though an inconceivable difference of degree (theirs was a only a likeness [in that it was sinless] in relationship to the rest of mankind’s sinful nature).

As to her uniqueness:

The "splendor of an entire unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son." The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person . . .

For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin.

God had to do a special miracle to make Mary different than us. Was Mary free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic tradition. According to this tradition, Mary was born without sinful human nature with inherent tendencies to sin caused by Adam’s transgression. So this refers to Mary as not being under the weight of that curse, not because of WHO, but because of WHAT she was—as the immaculate, "bearer of God" and of Christ’s immaculate human nature. Mary was given a pre-fall human nature in order for Jesus to be born with a sinless human nature, according to this teaching.

Implications of an Immaculate Conception

The erasure of fallen human nature in Mary elevates her to a level beyond humanity, for there has been no sinless human nature since the sin of our first parents. Accordingly, she provided the very nature that was necessary in the plan of salvation. For many Catholics even her blood was provided which was shed for us, through Jesus of course. Today we hear of the desires of many in the rank file of the Catholic community to officially make her the Redemptrix, Co-Redeemer, with Christ.

The official and "infallible" doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as solemnly defined as an article of faith, by Pope Pius IX (in the papal Bull Ineffabilis Deus), speaking ex cathedra, in which he infallibly defined this doctrine as binding upon all Catholics, warned his people:

Wherefore, if any shall presume, which may God avert, to think in their heart otherwise then has been defined by us, let them know, and moreover understand, that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have made shipwreck as regards the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church.

Ludwig Ott wrote that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a long standing tradition.

The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Redeemer, and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers, for example, St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, . . . St. Cyprian, . . . St. Leo the Great. However, it is not found in the writings of the majority of the Fathers . . . According to this interpretation, Mary stands with Christ in a perfect and victorious enmity towards Satan and his following. Many of the later scholastics and a great many modern theologians argue, in the light of this interpretation . . . that: Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had ever been under his dominion. Consequently she must have entered this world without the stain of original sin."

This conception is further defined by Catholic writers thus:

The ancient writing, "De Nativitate Christi," found in St. Cyprian’s works says: Because (Mary) being "very different from the rest of mankind, human nature, but not sin, communicated itself to her."

Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, said in the second council of Nice, that Mary "is truly the mother of God, and virgin before and after childbirth; and she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than that of all natures, whether intellectual or corporeal.

This plainly puts the nature of Mary entirely beyond any real likeness or relationship to mankind or human nature as it is. Let’s follow this line of thought in its next step as it relates to Jesus as given in the words of Cardinal Gibbons:

We affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is, from all eternity, begotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fulness of time again begotten, by being born of the virgin, thus taking to himself from her maternal womb a human nature of the same substance with hers.

As far as the sublime mystery of the incarnation can be reflected in the natural order, the blessed Virgin, under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second Person of the adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the same substance with her own, is thereby really and truly His mother Emphasis supplied.

Desolidarized: Both Mary and Jesus

Mary was desolidarized and separated from that sin-laden humanity. . . . Had there been no Immaculate Conception, then Christ would have been said to be less beautiful, for He would have taken His Body from one who was not humanly perfect! There ought to be an infinite separation between God and sin. . . .

How could [Christ] be sinless if He was born of sin-laden humanity? If a brush dipped in black becomes black, and if cloth takes on the colour of the dye, would not He, in the eyes of the world, have also partaken of the guilt in which all humanity shared? If He came to this earth through the wheatfield of moral weakness, He certainly would have some chaff hanging on the garment of His human nature. Emphasis supplied.

As we place the above thoughts together we learn that the nature of Mary is defined as being not only "very different from the rest of mankind," but it is also "more sublime and glorious than all natures." Consequently she is "desolidarized and separated from that of sin-laden humanity." This puts her beyond any actual likeness to mankind as we really are.

Next comes the main point in this line of reasoning. Jesus is described as taking from his mother a human nature of the same substance as hers. From this it follows that in Christ’s human nature Jesus is "very different" from the rest of mankind—"desolidarized and separated" from us. His human nature was immaculate like His mother’s. His nature was so far separated from us as to be unlike that of mankind. His was a nature in which He could never be touched with the fellow-feelings of mankind.

Daniel prophesied that the "little horn" would "think to change times and laws." This attempted change in God’s laws can be observed not only in the altered moral law, but also in the so-called exemption of God’s law of heredity as it relates to Mary and to Jesus. It was the papacy who first attempted to exclude both Mary and Jesus from the law of heredity.

By the fourteenth century the Papacy, in its representative head, became the self-declared Lord and Savior of mankind. "We declare, say, and define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

In attempting to change God’s moral law and His law of heredity the "little horn" power of Daniel 7, likewise, set himself against the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior and Representative. In its struggle for dominion of the world the Papacy had to destroy the effectiveness of Christ as the only Savior of mankind. What better way than to present Him as one who cannot be touched "with the feelings of our infirmities," one exempt from inherited tendencies to sin. The Papacy has presented Jesus, always, as an incomplete Savior. It thought to change the law of heredity through the immaculate conception, and by so doing desolidarizing and separating Jesus from those whom He came to save.

But the Spirit of God presents Jesus in corporate solidarity with those He came to save. At the end of time, during the pre-advent judgment, just before the Elder Brother of the race—"the Son of Man"—returns to get His earth-bound believing brothers and sisters, as their Representative He receives from "the Ancient of Days" dominion, and power and glory and the kingdom in the pre-advent judgment. He receives the dominion, not for Himself, but in behalf of His people whom He represents. (Daniel 7:13, 14, 26 ,27).

Before Jesus could obtain a kingdom and dominion for us, He first had to overcome the world within us. That world is encapsulated within our corporate fallen nature. Christ had to overcome that world within human nature before He could obtain the earth as the "Son of Man," the Second Adam. He overcame through grace alone, by faith alone, because of God’s word. He believed that the Father would keep Him from falling (Isaiah 49:5-9).

Thomas Torrance put the reason for the incarnation this way:

Perhaps the most fundamental truth which we have to learn in the Christian church, or rather relearn since we have suppressed it, is that the Incarnation was the coming of God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved humanity, where humanity is at its wickedness in its enmity and violence against the reconciling love of God. That is to say, the Incarnation is to be understood as the coming of God to take upon Himself our fallen human nature, our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator. This is a doctrine found everywhere in the early church in the first five centuries, expressed again and again in terms that the whole man had to be assumed by Christ if the whole man was to be saved, that the unassumed is unhealed, or that what God has not taken up in Christ is not saved. . . . Thus the Incarnation had to be understood as the sending of the Son of God in the concrete form of our own sinful nature and as a sacrifice for sin in which He judged sin within that very nature in order to redeem man from his carnal, hostile mind.

In these last days, God sent a message to counteract the false gospel proclaimed by the "little horn" power of Daniel seven. As Jones put it: "O, he is a complete Saviour. He is a Saviour from sins committed, and the conqueror of the tendencies to commit sins"

Speaking about the importance of the human fallen nature Christ assumed, Jones taught that ". . . the salvation of God for human beings lies in just that one thing" A. T. Jones, "The Third Angel’s Message", No. 13, General Conference Bulletin, 1895, p. 233.

E. J. Waggoner, earlier, made the connection between our justification and the human nature of Christ: "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh, that He might justify us."

The doctrine of Christ as taking an unfallen human nature flows of necessity from the teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her actual sinlessness. The absence of fallen human nature for Mary breaks the chain of heredity and allows for instant holiness of nature both for Mary and Jesus and thereby denies the law of heredity. It is thus that Mary and Jesus overcame sin—by evading the law of heredity.

According to that theory, Jesus was victorious, not by faith, but through His partaking of Mary’s immaculate nature. He, like Mary, could not possibly be tempted with concupiscence. And like Mary He really didn’t die. Death is the consequence of sin. Jesus, like Mary, was exempt both from sinful nature and from "original sin" and thus from death. Immunity from sin and death were theirs because they were excused from the liability to which all others are subject—the law of heredity. What happened, then, when it appeared that Jesus died on Calvary? It was only an appearance. He didn’t really die. Where did He go? He went on a missionary journey into Hell to save Adam and Eve among others. So we read:

He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him—He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."

The Apostles’ Creed confesses in the same article Christ’s descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day. . . ."

The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was ‘raised from the dead’ presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.

Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

According to the implications of this fanciful teaching, the cross was not necessary. Mary came equipped by an immaculate conception in order to overcome sin. In turn, she passed this immaculacy on to Jesus. This dogma denies the death of Jesus, because sinless nature is not subject to death.

Adam, as originally created, was immune from death. He was likewise immune from temptation from within. Redeemed mankind, at the Second Advent of Christ, will be again immune from death and from inherited tendencies to sin. They then will not be tempted from within.

But between the two Edens, man is neither immune from death nor from temptation from within. And from neither of these could Christ be exempted. The fact that He died demonstrates His mortality which He assumed consequential to His taking fallen flesh. He could not have died had He not taken sinful nature. Had He merely taken Adam’s sinless nature, the devil could not have put Him to death. Christ was obligated to take mortality upon Himself. And mortality comes only through fallenness. Death would never, could never, occur in sinless nature. This is an impossibility.

If Christ could not and did not really die, because He was sinless in nature, then human beings can never be justified and reconciled, for reconciliation and justification are linked directly to the death of Christ (Romans 5:9, 10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Any Immaculate Conception doctrine, of Mary or of Jesus denies, or at least undermines, the gospel. What is at stake here is the gospel, as well as God’s law.

Paul presented the human nature of Christ as the gospel. The gospel is "concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:1-3). David’s flesh or nature was sinful. He could only pass on to his descendants, including Mary, a sinful human nature. The word translated "seed" is spermatos. David’s DNA—the nucleic acid in which encoded genetic information was transmitted to Jesus through Mary. While it is true that the sequence of nucleotides determined the individual hereditary characteristics of Jesus from David through Mary, it is also true that those same nucleotides carried the tendencies of David’s sinful human nature which he in turn received from his ancestors reaching all the way back to Adam. The hereditary linkage between Jesus and the rest of the race is the scandal of the gospel. But in this very scandal is proclaimed the salvation of mankind! This is what is denied in the doctrine of any immaculate conception, whether the doctrine refers to Mary or to Jesus. The Church of Rome opted for a "desolidarized and separated" Christ from the rest of humanity. Because of this she invented another plan of saving man. A different Christology means a different consequent soteriology.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception begins to blur the line between Christ and fallen man. The idea that Christ took unfallen human nature obscures the line between the nature of the fallen race and the nature of Christ.

The Church of Rome presents a Christ, through an immaculate conception, who was like us in nature, but not really the same. It was of the "same substance with" Mary His mother. By Rome’s teaching, her nature was "very different from the rest of mankind" although it was still "human nature."

This is not the teaching of Scripture. It says unequivocally concerning Jesus that "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same;" that God sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh;" that "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren;" that He "Himself took our infirmities" and was touched "with the feeling of our infirmities," being tempted in all points like as we are. If Christ was not as we are in human nature, He could not possibly be tempted "like we are." But Scripture declares that He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." The only way He could possibly be tempted in all points like we are tempted is to be made like we are. That Christ took the common human nature of fallen mankind with its inherent tendencies to sin is as clear in Scripture as are two other doctrines—the Sabbath and the non-immortality of the soul.

The "Holy Flesh" doctrine at the beginning of the century and that same doctrine since the 1950's embraced the theory that Christ was exempted from the law of hereditary concerning tendencies to sin. During both time periods advocates taught "similarities" and "differences" concerning Christ’s human nature. Both sets of interpreters presented Christ as truly human in that He became tired and hungry and thirsty as all humans do. However, in regard to overcoming sin, reached diametrically opposite conclusions. The early century advocates decided that since they were to overcome sin as Christ overcame, and since He took the holy flesh of pre-fall Adam (exempted from tendencies to sin), it followed consistently that they must gain an experience that would eradicate sinful nature from themselves and thus become like Jesus and Adam before he fell and thereby overcome sin. Their teaching and consequent experience were based largely on the popular subjective experience of the Pentecostal movement of the day.

On the other hand, the mid-century advocates decided that since Jesus overcame in the holy flesh of pre-fall Adam (exempted from tendencies to sin), and since we do have tendencies to sin, it follows consistently that we cannot overcome sin. Hence their teaching and experience reflects the popular objective teachings of original sin and grace found in modern Evangelicalism. They reason that if Christ took unfallen Adam’s nature, fallen man cannot overcome as Christ did. They conclude that Christ must somehow wink at this aspect of salvation. His righteousness, they think, is sufficient to save them in their sinning.

In both the early and the mid-century theology, within Adventism, the Christology was similar. In soteriology they were eternally different.

At the close of the last Primacy meeting, the suggestion was proposed that Woodrow Whidden’s (II [title page] III [page 95]) book entitled Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ be read for this meeting.

Brother Whidden attempts

"to grasp the issue at its very core. The more traditional post-Fall interpreters have tended to read Ellen White as emphasizing the similarities, seeing Christ as sinful in nature (though not in action), while the seeming majority of more recent interpreters are pre-Fall and have emphasized the differences between His nature and ours. Their accent falls on the uniqueness of the sinlessness of His nature and life." Emphasis original.

Whidden’s observations seem dependent on Anglican minister Henry Melvill’s definitions deduced by careful researchers such as Ronald Graybill, Warren Johns, Tim Poirer and Eric Webster. Admittedly, there is no evidence produced that Ellen White used Melvill’s terminology in describing the human nature Christ took in the Incarnation as Tim Poirier clearly states, and as cited by Whidden: "Ellen White did not quote the words [of Melvill] (such as ‘innocent infirmities,’‘sinful propensities’ and ‘prone to offend’)." However, Poirer, as cited by Whidden, surmised and "suggested . . . the sentiments of Melvill could very well reflect Ellen White’s own conviction." Emphasis supplied.

Does it not appear that Anglican minister Henry Melvill’s teachings on "sinless infirmities" regarding Christ and recent Adventist interpreters about "innocent infirmities" "similarities" "differences" and "uniqueness" are an echo of classic Catholic theology?

According to Whidden, Jesus, though fully human, did not take a human nature with tendencies toward sin. In this he does not waver a hair’s breadth from the position on the human nature of Christ which was taken by Elders Froom, Anderson and Read during the 1950's when through their instrumentality, our position as Adventists on the nature of Christ was changed to meet the approval of the popular Evangelical doctrine.

Comments

Pre-lapsarians do not accept the notion that God can dwell in sinful fallen human nature without becoming polluted. They do not believe He subjected Himself to the working of the law of heredity in fallen humanity specifically with respect to temptations which come from within fallen nature through inherited tendencies to sin.

At this point, let’s consider God’s relationship to the believer today. Is a person’s sinful nature eradicated when the Holy Spirit causes him to be born again? The answer, of course, is no. Then, does God dwell in the believer even though he still has a sinful nature? Yes. Since God dwells now in the fallen nature of the believer, it follows that the possibility exists that Christ dwelt in sinful human nature 2,000 years ago. The skeptic asks how we can believe that God took sinful, fallen nature. The question would be embarrassing if we accepted the following propositions: (1) that there is no need for being saved from sinning; (2) that sin did not have to be condemned in its tendency as well as in its action; (3) that there is another way of salvation than that Christ had to be made sin for us; (4) that righteousness by faith means justification only; (5) that salvation comes through pre-lapsarian nature only; (6) that redemption was somehow withheld from some, while extended to others.

So, our first choice must be between pre- and post-lapsarian views. These views cannot co-exist. They are mutually exclusive concepts. If the pre-lapsarian view is to be accepted as correct, then we have a right to demand that every single thing should be such that we see, in general, how it can be explained in terms of the total plan of salvation. If any one thing exists which is of such a kind that we see in advance the impossibility of ever giving it that kind of explanation, then the pre-lapsarian doctrine would be in ruins. If any one thing is allowed to exist in any degree of independence from the plan of salvation, then the pre-lapsarian view must be abandoned.

To be consistent it appears that if a person holds the pre-lapsarian doctrine s(he) must accept the following teachings also: (1) an immaculate conception; (2) a Christ exempted from the law of heredity. (This means that it would not have been possible for Him to take fallen human nature; (3) that His righteousness in humanity was through inheritance by nature and not by faith; (4) that He could not have been tempted just as we are; (5) that there has been no Example of faith-obedience; (6) that Christ did not come to demonstrate that man in fallen nature through grace can obey; (7) that no power for fallen mankind to obey God’s law has been given; (8) that salvation is possible while willfully sinning against God; (9) that humanity cannot be perfected; (10) that there is no sealing of God’s people; (11) that there is no cleansing of the sanctuary (therefore no need of an investigative judgment); (12) that Sabbath keeping is an impossibility in sinful human nature; (13) that Sabbath observance as a test of loyalty is meaningless; (14) that it makes no difference which day of the week is kept. The result of this teaching is that it will be convenient to give up the Seventh-day Sabbath when threatened with economic sanctions, slavery, and the penalty of death (Revelation 13:15-17).

Christ did not have to become a man at all unless He had so chosen. Since the incarnation happened, the kind of nature Christ took is the central issue in the plan of redemption. This is no peripheral issue. Let me repeat: Christ did not have to take upon Himself human nature at all, unless He chose to do so. But having chosen manhood, He had to take the only kind of human nature available. There was no other kind than fallen, sinful human nature. A higher nature was not possible through the law of heredity, unless there really was an immaculate conception to exempt Him from that law.

If the law of heredity is a necessary truth, exemption cannot break it. If the law is right, exemption is wrong; if the exemption is right, the law is wrong. Or considered thus: if the law of heredity is truth, exemption is a false doctrine; if the exemption is true, then the law is a fraud and there is no need for an exemption.

God did not break His own law of heredity. He evidently created a miraculous spermatozoon (although this would not be necessary) in the womb of a virgin. This creation did not proceed to break any laws. The laws of nature took it over. Pregnancy followed, according to these normal laws, and nine months later the Christ Child was born. The virgin birth was not a contradiction to, nor did it outrage nature.

In nature there is exhibited for us, in favor of virgin birth, a process known as parthenogenesis. Natural parthenogenesis typically involves the development of eggs from virgin females without fertilization by spermatozoa. It occurs chiefly in crustaceans, worms, and certain insects.

A miraculous, as well as a natural, conception leads to pregnancy. It does not violate the law. A miracle is not an act of suspending the pattern to which events naturally conform. The miraculous conception of Christ was the feeding of new events into the God-ordained law of heredity. If this law was altered by supernatural power, then God is open to the charge of changing His law of heredity. (An immaculate conception violates God’s law).The cause of the conception in Mary was the activity of God; but its results followed according to the law of heredity. The process of God incarnating in human flesh was the miracle of the ages, but it was not a deviation from God’s law. It did not disregard legal, moral, or ethical considerations as would an immaculate conception.

We need to think carefully about a believer’s relationship with Christ, today, in comparison with the incarnation. Christ, by His Spirit, dwells now within temples of sinful human flesh. This union is not an anomaly, but is a faint reflection of the incarnation of Christ. Although in a very minor key, it is the same theme. What can we learn from this? Since Christ is united with sinful nature, today, through faith on the part of the believer, it follows that He could have dwelt in a fallen temple of flesh when He took upon Himself humanity in the incarnation.

In accepting the post-fall nature, Christ took the temptability which comes from within that nature. "Tempted like as we are" would not, could not, occur in unfallen sinless human nature. Condemnation of sin in sinless flesh is an impossibility. Crucifying sinless flesh makes no sense. And overcoming the world within us cannot take place in unfallen flesh.

The reason God can now dwell within us and not become polluted is because He did so in our behalf, condemning sin in its tendency 2,000 years ago. If He did not then, He cannot now; if He would not then, He will not now. Only because He did so then, can He so do now.

Christ took the devil’s strongest triumph, death, and made it the weapon by which He will destroy the devil (Hebrews 2:14). And likewise, Christ took the strongest temptations to sin—which come from within—and defeated them! He condemned them in our sinful nature (Romans 8:3). Christ either had to condemn sinful tendencies or to justify them.

Christ met, fought and conquered sin in its tendency. Because of this everything is different. Because of this, and only because of this, can man be justified and have the righteousness of the law fulfilled within his experience through faith.

In dealing with the law of heredity in relationship to Christ’s human nature, any mention of His fallen nature makes some persons feel uneasy. It raises awkward questions. For, so long as belief in a sinless unfallen human natured Christ is held, one does not take seriously the law of heredity nor of overcoming sin. Christ’s human nature then becomes an appearance sent from God to assure us of truths otherwise incommunicable. But what truths could these possibly be? If the truth is that in the incarnation Christ only appeared to have fallen nature, what more misleading way of communicating could possibly be found than this appearance, if we are to overcome as He overcame. With such a view, the nature of Christ, and even Christ Himself, would really be a hallucination.

Can we simply, and merely, drop the law of heredity? The answer is we can do so only if we regard the incarnation as a hallucination. Did God really send a holy hallucination to teach truth about our overcoming sin in sinful flesh? Is God such a bungler that He requires of us something Christ could not or would not do? If this is true, God is false and we might well be better off with the religious sophistry of an immaculately conceived Mary as our Mediatrix..

But if Christ is not a hallucination; if He did not come in phantom flesh, than a whole new mode of living has arisen in the universe: men in fallen flesh can obey God’s holy law. Then, and only then, loyalty to God in fallen nature is possible through the abounding grace of God.

"And what", you may ask, "does it matter?" "Do not such ideas only excite us and distract us from the more immediate and more certain things such as the love of God and of our neighbors, witnessing, self-denial, justification, obedience, etc.?" It matters much in every way. The above become meaningful only if viewed in the light of the concept that Christ "was made like unto His brethren in every respect." Then religion is removed from the ivory towers of theory and placed in the realm of the practical.

You cannot represent Christ as coming in the "likeness of men", "in the likeness of sinful flesh"; as being "touched with the feelings of our infirmities"; as being "tempted in all points like as we are"; as being obligated to be made "in every respect like His brethren" and not have Him take upon Himself our fallen nature. The mere idea of a human nature beyond and above human nature is not consistent with the laws of that nature.

What are some of the effects of the teaching of the fallen human nature which Christ took, upon the believer? He, too, may overcome. The non-believer? The concept ought to win his heart and fill him with hope. Upon Adam? He is without excuse.

What is the cardinal difficulty of the pre-lapsarian view? It makes a mockery of the message of righteousness by faith as given to us in the "loud cry" as presented by Jones and Waggoner. That message presented Christ as righteous by faith rather than by immaculate conception.

The pre-lapsarian view denies also the possibility of the obedience of faith by the believer, even with divine help. We then must overcome sin in a way different than did Christ. The truth of the matter is that if the pre-lapsarian doctrine is correct then Christ could not have overcome sin at all in sinless flesh. This is so because there is no sin in sinless flesh to overcome. If this is true, sin has not been conquered. And then it follows that Christ could not be a Savior of mankind at all. We then must become our own saviors.

Consider another difficulty related to this pre-lapsarian view: we are to have a living experience because of Christ’s life in us. His life is to be manifested in our mortal flesh. (Second Corinthians 4:11). Mortal flesh is dying flesh. Dying flesh is fallen, sinful nature. Mortal flesh is the flesh of sin. If Christ did not come in the flesh of sin in the incarnation, it follows that He cannot dwell in you and me now!

Implications of the doctrine that Christ does not dwell and never did dwell in sinful human nature are observable in this manner: Christ’s righteousness is only external, apart from the believer, and therefore does not penetrate sinful flesh; it does not touch Satan’s stronghold, the tendencies within sinful nature. As a consequence of this teaching there can be no demonstration of the power of Christ’s righteousness over sin in sinful flesh. The righteousness of Christ in this scheme of things becomes only a declaration made in heaven—the empty declaration of something which we are not and cannot become. The righteousness of Christ then becomes nothing more that a phantom righteousness, a phantasm of truth.

Summary and Conclusion

The facts are in for all to see: 1) that within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for the past fifty years, there has been essentially two opposing teachings concerning the kind of human nature Christ assumed in the incarnation); 2) that there was a deliberate change in our Church’s teaching with regard to Christ’s humanity during the 1950's; 3) that there was at least one attempt to change the Church’s teaching previous to the 1950's; and 4) that the attempted change in doctrine was considered by those who opposed that change as a switch to a teaching more compatible with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

The message of Christ and His faith righteousness as presented by Jones and Waggoner was inseparably connected and internally consistent with the post-lapsarian view on the kind of human nature He took in the incarnation. Not only did Christ take upon Himself fallen human nature with its inherent tendencies to sin, but that His doing so is essential to the plan of salvation according to Jones and Waggoner. He condemned sin in its tendency by never allowing it expression in motive, thought or action. Where sinful tendencies abounded in Christ’s human nature, the grace of God did much more abound. Thus Christ is a complete Savior, saving not only from the penalty of sins committed, but also from inherited sinful tendencies. Their consistent soteriological doctrine was based on their Christological premise.

In closing, I want to leave this thought about the message of Christ and His faith righteousness will go to the world, for God commanded it.

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits, and His changeless love for the human family. All power is given into His hands, that He may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of His own righteousness to the helpless human agent. This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel's message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure.

Appendix A