Now of course, our understanding of these issues determines how we understand the nature of Christ, or maybe it is the other way around. Our understanding of the nature of Christ determines how we view the other issues. Priebe and Larson say Jesus had a sinful nature and it did not make Him commit sin, so our sinful nature should not be a problem to us.
Brother Priebe believes that Jesus' inheritance was just the same as our inheritance with absolutely, no difference. He says,
Building on the foundation, we move to the nature of Christ. If sin is not nature but choice, then Christ could inherit our fallen nature without thereby becoming a sinner. He remained ever sinless because His conscious choice was always in obedience to God, never allowing His fallen nature to control His choices. His inheritance was just the same as our inheritance, with no need to resort to special intervention by God to prevent Jesus from receiving human falleness from Mary. (p.7)
Now Priebe and Larson are partially right when they emphasize freedom of choice and state that this is the critical factor in dealing with sin. They are correct that it is important in the context of the great controversy, but they, along with millions of Adventists and hundreds of millions of Christians have totally misunderstood the meaning of “freedom of choice.” They have completely misunderstood what they must choose and how they must choose, and as a result, they have set out to accomplish a task which is impossible.
I have no hesitation in saying that all those who seek victory by the means which Priebe and Larson describe will never find it . They will wallow in the hopeless mire of self-effort until Christ returns and be no closer to the victorious life than at the beginning. It matters not whether we believe in the keeping of the commandments or not. It matters not whether we are Trinitarians or whether we can perfectly define the nature and identity of God. The path outlined by Priebe and Larson is a dead end road and I pray God that all those of us who have been travelling this path will get off it as fast as possible. It goes nowhere.
It is not only the doctrine of original sin which has caused confusion, but Priebe's and Larson's gospel of original Sinlessness has also caused confusion and the development of false doctrines as well.
The doctrine of these men is based on their belief that the goal of God in the controversy is to prove that man is capable of living without committing sin. Since they believe that man has no problem apart from his wrong actions, their entire focus is on man's works. On what man can, and must do in order to stop sinning. Their teaching is based on the premise that man is able to do good, all he needs to do is to choose the right actions.
This really puts the pressure on man. It places the emphasis on the capabilities of humanity. It is really saying that God made man capable and that if he only receives a little help (because of his weak nature) then he will be able to live a perfect life as Adam was able to do in the beginning. In this scenario the emphasis is on living right, on doing what is good. The focus is on works.
by Ken Corklin
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Rom 3:23-25)
I would like us to consider this text for a moment and see if we can understand what it is really saying. There is a word used which I would like us to especially examine. It is the word, “propitiation.” Do we know what a propitiation is? I found a definition in Webster's dictionary explaining what a propitiation is.
by David Clayton
In this article we take a look at the Old Covenant. Even though it should be an obvious truth, not everyone recognizes that we cannot truly understand the New Covenant unless we first of all understand the Old Covenant and its purpose.
The popular definition of a covenant is that it involves two parties, each of whom agrees to do certain things provided the other party fulfills his part of the bargain. But in the Bible this is not always what a covenant implies.
One example of what I mean is the covenant which God made with the world after the flood of Noah's days. After the flood God said:
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth …. And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Gen 9:13-15)
by David Clayton
The phrase, “the everlasting gospel,” is one that every Adventist is very familiar with. We all know the three angels' messages inside out. They have been the central focus, the key teaching of the movement, ever since it started more than a hundred and sixty years ago.
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, (7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. (8) And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (9) And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, (10) The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: (Rev 14:6-10)
Why did Jesus never sin when we all other men have sinned? Was it just chance or coincidence that only one man of all the billions who ever lived never actually performed a sinful action, even as a baby?
We have seen babies get into a temper, we have seen selfish behaviour in babies even before they could reason or understand. Did Jesus ever display such behaviour?
If He had displayed sinful behaviour as a baby, (such as selfish behaviour, temper tantrums, anger etc.) He would have demonstrated that He had a corrupt spiritual nature and was in need of a new mind. He would have needed to be born again.
It is true that a baby cannot commit a conscious act of sin and therefore cannot be guilty of sin. But a baby can, and does display sinful behaviour revealing that from the moment of birth he has inborn tendencies to wrong, and that he has a corrupt nature.
Since He never sinned, then it is obvious that Jesus must have had something which no other person had. There is always a reason. But what was this element which made Christ different?