Talk:Seventh-day Adventist theology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

[Untitled]

I've created this page with 3 main sections:

• mainstream doctrine - for outlining where SDA teaching is similar to the core teachings of mainstream Christianity
• distinctive doctrines - for outlining unique SDA teachings
• other doctrinal issues - a section to discuss SDA positions on other issues of a secondary or controverted nature, for example baptism, original sin and sinless perfection

Tonicthebrown 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ellen White section

Added citation and quote from 28FB #18 for official statement - BobRyan777 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, however FB 18 already cited in a later (more relevant) section. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Consolidating the reference is fine. But noting the various places where facts from that reference are stated - should still be accepted because everything stated in the article needs objective factual reference and not every point in FB 18 is discussed in any single reference. The fact that FB 18 is the Seventh-day Adventist formally voted position regarding both Spiritual Gifts and Ellen White - it is a primary source for the Ellen White section (obviously) and the reader should be informed of this objective fact whether or not it fits with someone's POV. BobRyan777 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sabbath section

I really think the section about the sabbath needs to be cleaned up. It's currently too lengthy , verbose and disorganised. For example, is it really necessary to have this sentence:

"Seventh-day Adventists will often spend much of Friday preparing meals and tidying their homes for the Sabbath."

I'd suggest cutting the section to about half its current size, and making it more focused. Perhaps a separate article can be created for a more lengthy description of the Sabbath as SDAs understand it? Tonicthebrown 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it needs cleaning up. Perhaps a section "Adventist Culture and the Sabbath" or similar would be helpful. This could include practices such as potluck meals at church, going for a walk to enjoy nature, etc. Actually come to think of it, this could be quite interesting and informative if cultural differences were explained. For example, I have heard that many American Adventists are quite comfortable eating at a restaurant on Sabbath, whereas in Australia this is less accepted. But please keep this section short and not too controverted, or we might look like legalists! (Which would not be NPOV because legalism is not the church's official position... phew; dug myself out of that one!)

I agree that a spinoff article would help. However, we need to be very careful not to "reinvent the wheel" as the existing articles Sabbath and Sabbatarianism are already very comprehensive. The "creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" is against Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Content forking). How about creating a new article "Sabbath in Adventism" which deals with areas unique to Adventism? This would include history of the Sabbath in Adventism, unique areas of Sabbath theology such as its place in end-time events, Sabbath cultural practices of Adventists, official statements by the Adventist church such as the related fundamental belief, and briefly Ellen White's position would be suitable. However debates over the biblical basis of the Sabbath, and history of the Sabbath in Christendom do not belong here as they are covered in Sabbath. Instead, these could be briefly mentioned with a main article link to the general Sabbath article. --Colin MacLaurin 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that having multiple ex/anti-adventist's opinions strays from NPOV. Is it acceptable to provide biased oppinions? I checked a couple other articles like LDS and JW to see their lack of being mainstream might also cause a bit of bias, but sofar have seen no ex or anti-LDS/JW individuals quoted. It would be like quoting Lutherins about Catholic theology or Mennonites about Anglican theology. Should these areas be removed or are biased oppinions exceptable if they are labled appropriately?Occidensylvania (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Occidensylvania, have you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? This is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. It states that where the experts disagree on a point (this would include biblical theology for instance), all the major points of view should be mentioned, and in proportion. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Colin, I have read the NPOV but still am wondering if ex-/anti-adventist's theology is applicable to a document about adventist theology. (For the sake of full disclosure, I'm an SDA with atypical and eclectic (not really moderate) theological viewpoints.) Doesn't it seem like the topic is a bit broad when everyone's opinion is noted? I know SDAs probably really care what Ford or Ratzlaff say but does anyone else? And what is up with all the Paxton quotes? His quotes seem pointless. One of them states that "Adventists do not believe they are accepted by God because they keep the Sabbath any more than they believe they are accepted by God because they practice monogamy!" Does this mean that they consider it as important as monogamy or monogamy as trivial as keeping the sabbath? Or is he trying to convey that they are not a works oriented church? It doesn't really clarify anything and it might make it seem like someone is grasping at any "objective" voice to concur with SDAs being mainstream. Maybe if there were some quotes from other Christian religions that keep Saturday as sabbath...what about an author from the Seventh-Day Baptists or Church of God (Seventh-Day)? On another note, SDAs have historically not had a creed and the adoption of the Fundamental Beliefs has not really unified the various theological beliefs found in the church. I attend an adventist school and have friends in several theological camps. At first glance, there appears to be only two or three types of SDAs but in reality there are many. These coming from the history of believing that truth (Biblical) is arrived at by "searching the scriptures daily" (individually) with the enlightenment of the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit) and then "not forsaking the fellowship of the brethren" so that as "iron sharpens iron" they can perfect that understanding as did the Bereans. This paired with the newer belief that they need to conform to (or be "unified" by) the 28 Fundamental Beliefs has lead to some very interesting situations where the majority agree with the Beliefs but with differences in how they define terms or how the Beliefs should be practiced. And there are those (few?) that believe the 28FBs are simply a creed and thus may contain errors not found in original scripture. Also many SDAs don't agree with the theology produced by mainstream SDA theologians for various reasons. (too conservative, too liberal, too moderate, too complicated, etc.) So basically I'm saying that if you have too many outside opinions about SDAs you will never have a good idea of what individual SDAs really believe. In summery, would it be good to remove pointless quotes or put them where they fit better (e.g. Paxton's may work out better below the paragraph about SDAs not believing the sabbath to be works based...if that was what he was trying to convey). And what about the section on whether individuals that leave the denomination still keeping the sabbath, does it really affect adventist theology?Occidensylvania (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The ex- and anti-Adventist positions deserve inclusion, per "neutral point of view". However it is true that a third-party source is preferable. It really comes down to using the most authoritative sources possible ("authoritative" here means considered that by other scholars). For instance, Martin E. Marty is a well respected historian of Christianity, and I have quoted a comment by him somewhere. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a few citations and references to the Sabbath section - so that the teaching is broken down so the reader can easily see the unique aspect vs those parts of the doctrine that are in common with almost all other Christians groups. This way the reader who is not SDA will not be misdirected into thinking that some area is unique to sabbath keepers when in fact it is a point held by the majority of pro-sunday scholars. Always helps to know exactly where the paths begin to diverge. BobRyan777 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not unreasonable, but such detailed discussion is suited to the Sabbath in Christianity article, not here. (If you look there, you'll probably find there is already an appropriately detailed outline of the theological differences.) The other issue is that large block citations of other church creeds / confessions in order to make a point amounts to WP:OR. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The prior statement was factually incorrect. So the changes made to show the correct context for the Sabbath specific to Seventh-day Adventists with quotes and citations is necessary for the reader. That material is not presented on Sabbath in Christianity, probably because it pertains most specifically to the SDA context where they go from sunday keeping to Saturday and should remain here to inform the reader of the facts contributing to the early conditions for that change for the Adventist church. BobRyan777 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you are trying to improve these articles. However, my reversion was in line with WP:BRD. While in WP:GF, the main problem with your revisions was WP:OR. I've also outlined the other issues previously. Please consult WP policy re. OR, SYNTH and RS. As for "well documented", there needs to be proper sourcing from suitable secondary and tertiary sources. Your sourcing was from WP:PS (eg. Catholic catechism and other confessions) as well as a few non-RS such as http://www.sermonindex.net.

To avoid WP:editwar I'll leave your revisions for a day or two to give you an opportunity to address these issues, but after that, I'm reverting back to the revisions which had been achieved by a WP:Consensus over a number of years involving numerous WP editors. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

the sources are all secondary - the primary sources are the actual documents in published material - the secondary sources are the various places where the primary sources are republished for the internet. The tertiary source is the 27 Fundamental Beliefs document referencing the facts as stated. There are few comments/sources in this article with that level of support - my comments have it. BRD simply allows for someone to roll something back. GF simply assume you did it in good faith. There is no OR here - in fact the reference to the Seventh-day Baptist influence goes to the point directly because it was specifically in regard to an Adventist sermon already promoting the Ten Commandments that the information from Rachael Oaks was presented to Adventists. If a more conforming way of presenting that same already established information is well established on wikipedia please provide the better form, and the example. Simply repeatedly rolling back well documented facts central to the topic is something we should all want to avoid.BobRyan777 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity I'll move the discussion down to the bottom, thanks Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Naming

I suggest that this page be renamed to Seventh-day Adventist theology. "Doctrine" has a slight negative connotation for some people. Also, this article corresponds to Category:Seventh-day Adventist theology. WP:NCC states categories should be "of the same or similar name" to the corresponding article, if it exists - so it's not compulsory, but I think it would be nice to use the same title. Finally, the category was created first, and also categories are harder to rename. --Colin MacLaurin 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a better name. I am not a theologian, however, I think that doctrine and theology can be both worked into the same page. Ansell 08:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Just want to explain my recent changes to the introduction:

• Replaced "also considered evangelical by most Christians". I think this statement expresses a somewhat subjective POV (especially the "most"). We'd need to be able to support it with some kind of hard evidence -- for example, statements by numerous non-Adventist church leaders that they regard the SDA church as evangelical. I am doubtful whether we'd be able to find such statements.
• "some of these beliefs are becoming more common in other churches". This statement also would need substantiation. I think "some of these beliefs are also held in other churches" is safer.

Thanks. Tonicthebrown 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone of the introduction is very good now; or I could say, "very NPOV, according to my POV"! I'm content with it as it stands. But let me comment that there are already several statements in Adventist-related articles saying that most Christians regard the church as evangelical. The best reference to use is Walter Martin. I'm confident it would be easy to find other references too, if needed.

In regards to the second point; again I'm satisfied with the current wording. I was uncomfortable when it said that we hold a lot of "unique" doctrines - it could have been interpreted that the Adventist church is the only one which believes them, whereas (individually) most are held by other denominations and/or reputable theologians. In regards to annihilationism/conditional immortality, this is definitely growing in evangelicalism, now making up a significant portion of evangelicals (this would be easy to reference), including Clark Pinnock, who is highly respected albeit controversial. IMO it's no longer seen as heretical or out of the mainstream. In regards to the law, I find N. T. Wright's position quite similar to the church's, albeit with differences in details. He is one of the most respected evangelicals, the most significant to join the movement of rethinking Paul the apostle's theology. I would guess that Sabbath is still a minority position, although Samuele Bacchiocchi's book From Sabbath to Sunday did create a stir. Regarding the 1844 investigative judgment and remnant, we're certainly the only group that believes these! I think we're almost the only group to take a historicist approach to prophecy, although possibly the Jehovah's Witnesses and some smaller groups. Other churches may not think so highly of Ellen White either! :-). Yet creationism is very big in America. So I guess it's a mixed bag. (Hope this helps other readers too as a future reference). -Colin MacLaurin 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a good reference regarding the nature of hell. The Evangelical Alliance ACUTE report states "We recognise that the interpretation of hell in terms of conditional immortality is a significant minority evangelical view."[1] This reference (unrelated to Seventh-day Adventism specifically) refutes many older works by various authors which include this belief as heretical in their criticism of the Adventist church. Colin MacLaurin 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another statement from the same report, "We appreciate the concerns of some that the influence of conditionalist theology has grown within evangelicalism in recent years,..." Colin MacLaurin 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between Adventism and Mainstream Evangelicalism

Colin, I've noticed your efforts to portray Adventism as being more closely aligned with mainstream evangelicalism. Whilst I applaud this ideal, I am concerned about drawing a negative reaction from more conservative Adventists, whose views we must also respect in the interests of NPOV. For example, your comment:

"Most Adventist scholars today (most notably the Ellen G. White Estate), believe White was fallible in her writings; that is, she made mistakes."

I think many Adventists would regard this is quite inflammatory. I'd suggest you at least qualify the statement a little. We have to try not to bias things too much in the progressive direction! Tonicthebrown 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that statement was a little presumptuous. I have replaced it. Feel free to modify it again. Thank-you for your politeness and assuming good faith. I think the Adventist articles are approaching a healthy balance.

By the way, I was surprised myself when I discovered statements by Clifford Goldstein (hardly a liberal) and the White Estate that Ellen White was fallible. Try putting this into a Google search: "site:whiteestate.org fallible". It searches the White Estate website for the word 'fallible'. The results are interesting! On a separate note, may I request that the phrase "in order to understand more fully God's purpose for His remnant people" be moved to the remnant section? -Colin MacLaurin 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Human nature of Jesus

It would be really good if someone could find out what proportion of employed ministers believe Jesus had a fallen nature, vs. the proportion that believe he had an unfallen nature. Has a survey about this ever been done? Is there any way that we can prove that all denomination scholars take the unfallen position? Tonicthebrown 12:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

Tonic, regarding your recent edit "...against the majority of Adventists of the time.", I assume this is the annotated edition? I think we should add "(annotated edition)" or something to every occurrence in the citations, esp. since the original version is online but the annotated one is not. I could not see this statement on p. 650 of the original. Colin MacLaurin 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that was a mistake. Yes, the reference is to the annotated edition, page 519: "The teaching that Christ had sinful flesh ... became the belief of the majority of Seventh-day Adventists in the first half of the twentieth century. That teaching was so widely accepted that it no longer needed to be argued in Adventist literature. It was accepted as a fact. It was upon that teaching that M. L. Andreasen would build his final generation theology." Thanks for picking that up, Colin. Tonicthebrown 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tongues

Here is the Biblical Research Institute article on tongues [2]. Need to add its POV. Colin MacLaurin 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Restructure

I felt that the section called "theological basis" was becoming too broad to have that title. I have merged it with the section previously called "major current views" (a somewhat clumsy title, IMHO) into a new section called "Overview".

I still feel that "Overview" needs to be streamlined, and perhaps culled a bit. As it stands, the reader has to wade through quite a lot of rather tedious stuff before getting to the actual beliefs -- which is probably what people are really interested in. Some thoughts:

• Noncredalism -- perhaps can be ditched entirely. It's really just of historic interest. Perhaps it can be moved to the SDA history article.
• Theological spectrum (formerly "other sources") -- do we really need an analysis of scholars vs. administrators vs. laymen? Is it encyclopedic? Is it of any interest to outsiders? Perhaps it can all be a little more succinct?
• Perhaps the "theological spectrum" discussion could be merged into "change and development", with a description of how the spectrum actually emerged over time? Eg. Historics emerged in the 1950s, and Progressives in the 1970s?
• Relation to other groups -- I wonder if this is really necessary either; perhaps some of the content can be merged into other parts of the article. If the article as a whole contains an adequate statement of Adventist theology, the reader can draw their own conclusions about how it relates to other Christian groups. The thing about fundamentalists Christians seems esoteric -- I personally would question whether "fundamentalism" can even be considered as a uniform entity.
• Theological climate -- Perhaps this has some potential, but at the moment it is just some stuff about Cottrell, which should just go in the Cottrell article.

I realise I might sound like a bit of a Nazi here, but as I said I am concerned that the reader has to wade through what seems to be a lot of esoteric/academic stuff before getting to the actual doctrines. Tonicthebrown 11:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have ditched the noncredalism section -- everything said there is already said in 28 Fundamentals, where the discussion is more relevant. I've cut the bit about books published on denominational presses, because clearly this is not a source of official beliefs (the sentence itself said that). I've moved the stuff from Theological Climate to Raymond Cottrell. I don't think it is NPOV to describe the theological climate using just one man's views, and a dead man at that! All assessments of the theological climate of the church are going to be inevitably subjective and POV, and so I really don't think this is an encyclopedic matter. Let me know if you disagree Tonicthebrown 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your changes, Tonic. In response to your 4th point "Relation to other groups", I think that it is very pertinent to mention how the church sees itself in regards to fundamentalism, evangelicalism, liberalism etc. More detail might go in the new Seventh-day Adventist interfaith relations article. "Theological climate" mainly belongs in the history article, I guess. The page does need some trimming (and also expanding on some points). I look forward to expert assistance at some stage. Colin MacLaurin 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SDAs believe.jpg

Image:SDAs believe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

This has been a balanced, comprehensive and NPOV article for months-years. The extensive rewriting was not discussed prior to being implemented. Some of the revision has an unacceptable POV. Please discuss major changes here and gain a consensus of WP editors prior to rewriting. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Human nature of Jesus II

Hi Simbagraphix. I've noted your recent revision.

My understanding of the situation regarding the human nature of Jesus is that everyone except the "historics" have shifted to the "pre-fall" position since QOD. This includes the "progressives", but is not limited to the progressives.

Based on my reading here is my understanding of the 3 general groupings within Adventism

1. Historics - believe in post-fall human nature of Jesus, last generation perfection
2. Middle ground - believe in pre-fall nature, accept traditional formulation of investigative judgment, etc.
3. Progressives - reject traditional formulation of investigative judgment, etc.

Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Adventist believe that Christ was in all ways created as man and this includes Adam’s human nature after the fall. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam - that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. A good description is in Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wwhc/

Also good read in SDA Bible Commentary: "In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}

Here is a explanation by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez on the Adventist church view of the nature of Christ :

"...the church's Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is useful because it summarizes that which the church holds to be biblical truth around the world. Let me quote from it some statements related to your question: "God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14]. . . . Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ [Heb. 2:14]. . . . He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God [Heb. 4:15]." In infinite love and mercy "God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21, Clear Word).

Those statements attest that, first, Jesus was divine; second, that He became what He was not, truly human; and, third, that He was without sin, even though He faced severe temptations. We can make those affirmations without hesitancy because that is what the Bible clearly teaches about God's Son...."

Now Historics tend to go the the semi arian views and that Christ had a sinful inclination and desires to sin, this is not what Adventist doctrine holds but many seemed to have picked that up from early views in the church and thus the issue.

Progressives tend to go the other way, to original sin and pre-fall nature along with the other things you put, ...reject traditional formulation of investigative judgment, etc.

Let me know if anything else I can help. Simbagraphix (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read there is much confusion over what is meant by Jesus' "human nature" as used by Ellen White and other early SDA authors. On the one hand, human nature deals with mental propensity toward sin or no. On the other hand human nature can simply be talking about the physical condition of the body. Ellen's quotes in QoD and her writings indicate that, Jesus had the same mental propensity toward sin --a human nature -- as the unfallen Adam. At the same time He had a physical body -- a human nature -- that was marred by 4000 years of sin after the fall of Adam. So Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam. If you read Ellen's writings in the light of these two possible understandings and let the context determine which is which, I believe that the confusion completely disappears. The SDA Bible Commentary quote above is talking about Jesus' physical body after the fall with it's infirmities and weaknesses. The quote of Rodríguez is talking about Jesus living and experiencing temptation with out falling, i.e. mental stresses. 8een4Tfor (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a good explanation, "So Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam." and at the same time why it makes it hard to understand. What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of in my view, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'. Taking this into view, then the following quotes makes sense:

"Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours.--The Desire of Ages, p. 311.

"But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.-- The Desire of Ages, p. 117.

"The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him.--The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.

"Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

Christ possessed fully human nature, taking on man's human nature in its fallen condition, but with uncorrupted desires and inclinations (or Mind of Christ) available to all through the Holy Spirit.Simbagraphix (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Historic Adventists (following the lead of Andreason) take the descriptions of Jesus' fallen physical human nature and read it as if it's talking about Jesus mental human nature. Thus the Historic Adventists are unable to understand the official position of the SDA church. I think too, that the progressive Adventists confuse the two parts of human nature, just as the Historic Adventists, but reject the position of the Historic Adventists and also the investigative judgment, perhaps unaware that the Historic Adventist position is flawed in this way. And perhaps unaware that the church holds a different position. 8een4Tfor (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not that simple as the mental human nature was also affected by sin, so that had deterioration, but his mind in the spiritual sense (Mind of Christ) was untouched. Thus I would tend to agree that Historic Adventists take the descriptions of Jesus' fallen physical human nature and read that he had desires and inclinations which is not corrupt. Progressives tend to take the Catholic position of original sin which Adventist do not teach and mainstream Adventist do not believe.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Distinction between physical and mental human nature in QoD Ellen White quotes in Appendix

In Appendix B of QoD, Ellen's quotes on the nature of Christ are divided into several topics including the following two. The section on Sinless nature is talking about that nature of man by which one makes decisions for righteousness or sin, which is the functioning of the mind. The section on liabilities is talking about the physical nature of man as affected by sin over the millinia. To be sure the brain, as a physical entity is also affected by sin, yet Jesus' mind was sinless anyway.

III. Took Sinless Human Nature pp. 650-652

Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.—The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898.

When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure.—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

IV. Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature pp. 653-654

Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent.—The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. —The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

It is this two parts of the human nature that QoD promoted in contrast with Andreasen. 8een4Tfor (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a fair reading and agree with your statement "To be sure the brain, as a physical entity is also affected by sin, yet Jesus' mind was sinless anyway." I talked with my fellow teachers at church on Sabbath, and basically there was agreement that Christ physically and mentally in terms of acuity, retention, stress, etc.. was equal to man after sin. Yet Christ had a mind "in purity and holiness, connected with God" as Adam was given, that did not have a desire or a propensity to sin and also through daily struggle learned obedience and a resistance of evil. Here is scriptural support:

Hebrews 5..2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity....7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Notice it says Christ learned obedience. That means He didn't naturally obey. And 'compassed' with human infirmities, which would include the mind became tired or stressed, or suffer and be emotional as when Christ cried at Lazurus death. It is important to understand that Christ, because of human nature He took on, had the strength of human passion for sin. But He did not have the human passion to sin, or as Peter says 'the Mind of Christ'. Simbagraphix (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I have thought that most SDAs get this because of the widespread teachings of Heppenstahl and Morris Venden, and others, but I guess not. Somehow the Historic Adventists keep spreading Andreasen's heresy, and it appears that Australia was heavily influenced by Ford and Brimsmead.

I first read QoD in my mid-teens in the late 1960's. I had also read Andreasen's papers. (It turns out that the parents of a later brother-in-law printed Andreasen's papers). That's when I learned that Ellen and others talked about Jesus' human nature in two aspects. Once this is understood, the heresy of Andreasen is crystal clear and the opposite school is equally exposed. I believe that QoD is nearly the greatest book the SDA church has put out and ought to be required reading for all new Adventists. Of course many of Venden's books say much the same and are much easier to read. QoD put the SDA church back on the road to righteousness by faith in Jesus through grace alone. 8een4Tfor (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You must understand and this was throughout her writings, that Ellen White correctly taught that Jesus took upon Himself human nature as they existed when He came and was beset with all of the moral weaknesses and frailties that ordinary humans experience, but did not have the propensity to sin. Christ could be tested by temptation, but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations, and as Ellen White makes abundantly clear, was our example. It was shifted in Historic and Progressive thought, but the teaching was always there and QoD just brought it back in focus. This is the Adventist theology and belief, it just needs to be understood correctly, which Historic and Progressive tend to disregard and try to bend to their view.Simbagraphix (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

I have reverted the recent revision again, for these reasons. I understand the point that you are trying to make about the physical and spiritual aspects of Jesus' human nature. However, the problem is that this is not how the authors of QOD framed it. As far as I can tell, they did not use the terminology of Jesus' "physical" nature and his "spiritual" nature. They simply talked about, as you have observed, verses which teach "Took Sinless Human Nature" and verses which teach "Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature".

Therefore, you have added an editorial overlay to the discussion which is in fact original research and synthesis. Wikipedia content needs to remain objective and un-editorialised. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we please sort this out here before revising the article, in line with Wikipedia policy. I have a copy of QOD in front of me. It does not use the terminology of "physical nature" and "spiritual nature", not even on the key pages (650-652) which discuss the human nature of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the revisions that have been put forward are not appropriate, they are WP:OR and WP:SYN.

I'm happy for the section to be improved in an appropriate and encyclopedic manner. Why don't you propose the changes here, and we'll discuss them, and reach consensus prior to implementing them. See WP:BRD. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What the revision says concerning Progressive Adventists is also inaccurate. Progressive Adventists do not teach that Jesus had a pre-Fall physical state. This claim is unsupported, and is wrong. Progressive Adventists have the same view concerning Jesus' human nature as the mainstream of the church since QOD (that he suffered human frailties and weaknessess, but did not have a propensity to sin.) This is another reason why I object to the revision and have reverted it. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

From Appendix B :

Human Nature does not equal Sinless Human Nature Two headings of two different topics.

Human Nature = Christ took human nature (Ellen) = flesh and blood (Ellen)

Sinless Human Nature = He did not take the sinfulness of man = Jesus second Adam = The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being = Jesus Christ ... took upon Himself {Adam's sinless] human nature = Jesus' spiritual nature.

Therefore: Human Nature = Flesh and Blood, Sinless Human Nature = Jesus' Spiritual Nature. (our spiritual nature is not sinless) Q.E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8een4Tfor (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you are still making your own synthesis. Where does QOD distinguish between "physical nature" and "spiritual nature" (those exact words -- exact page reference, please)? You have not responded to anything I have said above. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why App B exists is to show what Ellen meant on the various subtopics. Under the topic Human Nature, Ellen is quoted to show exactly what she meant. Human Nature equals "flesh and blood." Do they then repeat what Ellen has just said in a sentence like: "So, according to Ellen, Human Nature is the flesh and blood body." No, of course not, because they know that anyone with reading comprehension can easily make that simple connection themselves! It is clear that Human Nature is flesh and blood. No one need spell it out to dummies.

The same thing for Sinless Human Nature, they did not bother to repeat what was clear in what Ellen said, because it is so simple to see. Sinless human nature equals Spiritual nature! You cannot walk away from the appendix without that elementary understanding, unless you deliberately choose to do so. You do not need the editors of the book to make that connection for you. That's why they made the appendix. The truth of this does not lie in authoritarian statements by editors, but in what is plainly stated by Ellen.

And to try to hide the truth by erecting superficial barriers to it is huge POV pushing. 8een4Tfor (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Progressive Adventists, check the page on Progressive Adventism "Progressives do not agree with any of the above statements but rather believe that Christ came with Adam's pre-fallen nature.[19]" Simbagraphix (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

1) That statement lacks any nuance about what "nature" means. It could mean (and probably means) simply that progressive Adventists believe Jesus was sinless. 2) Using Wikipedia to back up Wikipedia is not reliable sourcing. 3) The source given for that statement (by Dennis Priebe), is of questionable reliability. Dennis is not a Progressive Adventist so it is questionable whether he can speak for Progressive Adventists. 4) Priebe's article defines progressive Adventist belief about the human nature fo Christ thus: "Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall." Which is exactly what I said in point 1. So it remains that the claims made about progressve Adventist belief are incorrect Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Priebe is a secondary source. If he were a Progressive Adventist he would be a primary source. Secondary sources are always preferable over primary sources, so your complaint that he is not a Progressive Adventist and therefore unreliable is so much garbage. 8een4Tfor (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tonic, I have discussed and read up on this issue and have many Progressives that are friends, and they are very clear that to them it is Pre-Fall Adam versus Post-Fall, and this is one of the main points of contention.Simbagraphix (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, my point here is that the source does not support the claim. I agree with what Dennis Priebe says. He says that progressive ("evangelical") Adventists believe in Christ's sinless human nature with no inclination towards sin. That is a correct assessment of evangelical/progressive Adventism. It is also a correct assessment of what the mainstream of the church has believed since QOD. What Priebe does NOT say is that progressive Adventists believe in an unfallen physical nature of Christ. Nobody believes that, so it should not be claimed. "I've got friends" is not WP:RS. Tonicthebrown (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Prieve is not being complete on his description just saying they do not have his viewpoint and not elaberating on their pre-Fall or post-Fall position, and as 8een4Tfor points out is a secondary source.

Now here is a proper source and a good definition by Kenneth Samples who had an article "From Controversy to Crisis: An Updated Assessment of Seventh-day Adventism" (an article from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1988, Volume 11, Number 1, page 9) and was scheduled as one of the speakers at the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference at Andrews University.

Here is his definition of Progressive/Evangelical Adventists-

Progressive/Evangelical Adventists

The major doctrinal issues which united this group were:

1)*Righteousness by faith*: This group accepted the reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith includes justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ's own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.

2)*The human nature of Christ*: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ's human nature was like that of Adam's before the Fall. Though Christ certainly suffered the limitations of a real man, by nature He was impeccable (i.e., incapable of sin). Jesus was primarily our substitute.

3)*The events of 1844*: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.

4)*Assurance of salvation*: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ's imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven. Trusting Christ gives a person assurance.

5)*Authority of Ellen G. White*: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. However, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority.

Notice also that he adds "by nature He was impeccable (i.e., incapable of sin). Jesus was primarily our substitute", which is Catholic doctrine and their belief of Original Sin. Thus you see from his veiw, where Progressives are the ones headed in this direction, not the mainstream Adventist.Simbagraphix (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, however, please note carefully what Samples does and does not say.

"Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ's human nature was like that of Adam's before the Fall. Though Christ certainly suffered the limitations of a real man"

Samples is saying that (according to progressives) Jesus was only in Adam's (pre-fall) nature in the sense that he had no inclination toward sin. In other words, in his moral or spiritual nature he was unfallen. He did suffer the limitations of real men. Therefore, progressive Adventists agree that Jesus had a fallen physical nature even according to Samples. This is essentially the same as QOD's position and that of mainstream Adventists since 1950, as I understand it. Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what makes it so frustrating, I think its a issue caused in that many Historics and Progressives bring presuppositions and misread QoD or take a 'all or nothing' approach and so come up with Jesus nature as completely Pre-Fall vs Post-Fall and others in both camps follow along and it becomes self-perpetuating. Simbagraphix (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

false statement removal

Allen, no discussion is needed. When I read statements like "Others, such as the complete inerrancy of the Scriptures, are probably believed by most church members but not officially endorsed." A statement like that is 100% error.

The fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church states... "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. " see http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

Willfults (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is needed. Evidence, like you just gave, is needed. Jumping in and making a change with but an assertion that it is false, will not fly very far. I have no trouble with this change because you provided evidence, rather than just "your word". Someone else may object, so you need to take it easy, not rush through things. _8een4Tfor (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi 8een4Tfor, understood, Reasoning for each statement below (I'll start each point with a snippet of the original paragraph....

• "As an example, while the 1950s Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary represented many advances in Adventist theology"

- many advances, that's POV

• "Seventh-day Adventism has moved away from some legalistic and perfectionistic tendencies which characterised its earlier decades, towards a stronger emphasis on grace." - POV, uncited

• "Others, such as the complete inerrancy of the Scriptures, are probably believed by most church members but not officially endorsed." A statement like that is 100% error.

The fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church states... "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. " see http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

• "In a 1985 questionnaire" - this citation is a dead link, unverifable %s, also 15 years out of date.

• "The "historic" movement holds to certain traditional positions that have been become less popular in the last half-century." - POV, unverifiable.

• "In a 1985 survey of North American Adventist lecturers" - see above point.

• whole QOD paragraph in regards to original sin and how Adventists hold that similar to other denominations. Again POV, blanket statement. Saying every Adventist belives in original sin is quite the leap.

• "Later Adventists tended to adopt a more mainstream view of original sin" - Blanket statement, POV

• "In theological terms, sanctification is a life-long process etc etc"... uncited theological definition/blanket statement. I'm ok with this staying if there is a citation.

• "Some individual churches employ female associate pastors" - as long as there is a citation with this one I'm ok with it staying.

• "Jon Paulien, an Adventist expert on the book of Revelation," - removing "an Adventist expert on the book of Revelation" as that is POV.

• Links removed do not meet WP:EL, generally self-published.

• I remember also making a change somewhere where there was a statement saying atonement is finished 100% at the cross. That also contradicts the sanctuary. See http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

I'm reverting, then adding back in your change, 8een4Tfor. Please do a one by one edit if you disagree with anything. Thanks.Willfults (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

one more thing: Wikipedia is not interested in truth. It is only interested in what can be back up by reliable sources. That may be a shocker but that's the way it is. Allenroyboy (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Allenroyboy and 8teen4Tfour. Willfult's revisions have been generally disruptive. It may be appropriate for you to point out deficiencies in an article, and work towards consensus, but large scale revision (which generally involves the deletion of large slabs of adequately sourced material which disagrees with your POV) is inappropriate. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides Willfults, you are not being entirely honest here. Your series of revisions typically include a few minor changes as you outline here, but hidden among them are your large scale deletions of sourced, accurate material. This suggests to me that you are (either consciously or unconsciously) trying to cover your larger scale, POV revisions with the smaller, possibly more reasonable revisions. If you own up to this, we can be more constructive but until then, I am going to keep reverting things back to a stable revision which has consensus; you cannot expect other editors to wade their way through a whole series of revisions one by one when the overall thrust of the revisions is disruptive. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Willfult likes to take a meat cleaver approach, but he generally is correct in taking out or what is changed, as you can make sourced material say anything since it can be given without context (You could probably find sources that say Hitler was a great German leader, but without context, well you see the point). But I think we all agree, major changes have to be brought to the talk page, so Willfult bring it here and lets go over it first.Simbagraphix (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To my good friend Tonic, I know we are in disagreement in many articles, regarding everything from the Sabbath to pretty much every SDA position. But I think we can work together to bring this article to an accurate representation of SDA beliefs. For I know that although you are not SDA you do have an understanding of what they believe. For example, we did have a disagreement in regards to some points on this article before. Yet we each, instead of doing a bulk rollback, did individual changes one by one. You reverted some of mine, I reverted some of yours, we both brought forth reasoning. We eventually reached a consensus. I think this approach may work well again. Doing a bulk rollback will result in an edit war, which isn't what anyone wants.

I already brought reasoning for the majority of changes I made, see above. Anyone's comments are welcome. Each point is laid out. If you see a change with no reasoning bring it up, and I can comment (perhaps I missed a change or two). As Tonic says "hidden among them are your large scale deletions of sourced, accurate material" point me to a change like that and I will gladly explain, sometimes I do take a "meat cleaver" approach haha so feel free to bring it up. A lot of the material removed was in direct error. As Simbagraphix says "You could probably find sources that say Hitler was a great German leader" Indeed that is what some other editors have done to this article. Adding in material stating that the Adventist church does not fully endorse the infallibility of the Bible, that they believe in 4 billion years of evolution etc. Such is dishonest. All it takes is a glance at the fundamental beliefs of the adventist church to know this is incorrect. Willfults (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am quite busy with non-Wikipedia things right now. Please give me a couple of days and I will get back to this. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

However, Willfult, lets have input on the points in contention and take a go slow approach and work over the major issues so we can reach some concensus, with everyone (with knowledge of the issues, of course) participating, which in my experience usually results in a closer description of the truth of the matter. Though I might not agree with Tonic sometimes, you will find he is a excellent wordsmith and will work with the evidence presented, and 8een4Tfor also has a good grasp on the theological aspects, so lets see if we can move forward in improving this section on Adventist theology. Simbagraphix (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, I'm back. Thank you all for your comments. I want to let you know where I am coming from -- I have many SDA family and friends, but I am not an SDA, and therefore I like to think that I am not biased towards any of the various SDA view points, whether mainstream, historic or progressive. Personally I do not care which side "wins" or prevails over the others.

I have studied SDA doctrine and history because of my family and friend connections. My aim here is to achieve an accurate presentation of SDA teachings, with fair and balanced portrayal of the differing viewpoints (progressive, historic, etc.), in line with Wikipedia policies concerning due weight, neutrality, verifiability and so on. There have been times that I have opposed over-zealous "historic" POVs (as I detect coming from you, Willfults), and other times I have opposed over-zealous "progressive" POVs.

I will try to work through your revisions one by one, Willfults, and explain things here, and hopefully we can achieve consensus. Tonicthebrown (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanations

1. This material is an accurate account of what SDAs believe in common with other Protestants. It doesn't matter that it comes from QOD (which I agree is not universally respected among SDAs), what matters is that the list is accurate. Your revision "four authors" is sufficient to clarify things.

2. I have balanced this section out. the Pfandl article is from the BRI and therefore cannot be discounted. (Amazing Facts, on the other hand, is a third-party / independent source.) EGW should not be invoked by either position in the interests of balance.

3. This explanation of the historical shift is accurate. I have tweaked it so that it is more neutral and factual in tone. Before the 1950s, Adventists spoke of Atonement only in the sanctuary. Since the 1950s, mainstream Adventists speak of Atonement on both cross and sanctuary. ("historic" SDAs try to push atonement away from cross and towards sancutary, "progressive" SDAs try to push atonement away from sanctuary and towards cross). I have added extra supporting citation from SDA Encyclopedia.

4. The GRI is officially endorsed by the General Conference. Their perspective here is very much relevant. It does not contradict what official SDA publications say (such as SDAs believe - 28 fundamentals) or what EGW said.

Just one more general comment: just because a link is dead, does not mean that the material it supports is now wrong, or unverifiable. A source does not need to be accessible online for it to be verifiable. Wikipedia accepts citations from offline books, journals, encyclopedias, etc. So long as the relevant article DOES exist, the material remains verifiable (if someone wants to challenge it, it is up to them to track down the source offline). Tonicthebrown (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Creation section

About the GRI statement. It does not contradict 6 day creationism. It says that one possibility is that God created inorganic matter 4.56 billion years ago, and that a literal 6-day creation week still happened 6000 years ago. This harmonises with the EGW statement and the statement in SDAs Believe. I have reworded the paragraph to make this clear. The GRI is officially endorsed by the SDA church. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GRI is an SDA institution, funded by the SDA church and is part of the education system. Some SDA's don't seem to realize that Ellen does not support the idea that the universe was created at the same time as the creation week. Read the first chapter of Patriarchs and Prophets and a related chapter in the Great Controversy about the origin of Sin. Ellen talks about the inhabitants of the universe being tempted by Satan. And that Satan falls in part because he is jealous of Jesus the Word who with God the Father plans for the Creation of this world while Lucifer is excluded. He thinks he is as good as the Word so he ought to be consulted too. But the important part here is that according to Ellen, the universe exists and is inhabited by other intelligent beings (along with the angels) BEFORE the creation week. Thus the age of the universe is older than the age of the biosphere on this planet. I think it is unwise to put an estimate on the age of the universe based on Naturalist assumptions. I believe that we should keep it as undetermined. However I have no trouble with a universe that is billions and billions of earth years. Some people think that some how we humans are the important part the history of the universe. Wrong. God is the important part of the universe history along with his plan for eliminating sin from the universe (and insuring that it will never happen again in the universe). We are an important part of that plan, but God is the focus. so, how long we humans have existed in the universe is not the measure by which the age of the universe is measured. Allenroyboy (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Allen to make sure I understand your statements, I think we are in agreement that Satan fell first, then mankind was created. "Angels in Heaven mourned the fate of those who had been their companions in happiness and bliss. Their loss was felt in Heaven. The Father consulted Jesus in regard to at once carrying out their purpose to make man to inhabit the earth." - Spirit of Prophecy Volume 1 p. 23

And when you state "according to Ellen, the universe exists and is inhabited by other intelligent beings (along with the angels) BEFORE the creation week". I think you are talking about planets with intelligent beings (non-human), which I also agree that there are other planets, inhabited, were tempted, etc. So we are in agreement again (although I am not 100% sure of the timing of when other planets were created, it may have been after the fall of Lucifer I don't know), but the article Tonic is referencing is not talking about that. His writing states "radiometric dating gives the Earth's age as 4.56 billion years". Tonic's article is not talking about other planets that are far away from earth that are inhabited, it is a reference to our earth. Now the article does say radio dating points to 4.65 billion, that part Tonic mentioned is true.

But, the question is should the 4.56 billion be listed as an argument for the SDA position? The author gives the answer in the conclusion of the article when he states...

"Radiometric dating is an interpretive science. The complex chemical and physical processes taking place within the Earth's mantle and crust are neither completely known nor understood. This is especially true when the radioactive isotope parameters are considered. Couple these uncertainties with the fact that there are numerous times where radiometric ages are not in agreement, it would seem logical, almost compelling to seriously consider other sources of data for determining the time of Creation. For the Christian who is a scientist, such a primary source is the Holy Scripture. " He basically concludes saying don't trust radiometric dating. And that from a PhD scientist :). For this reason I am removing Tonic's change again and hopefully all three of us can agree. Thanks and may both you and Tonic have a blessed upcoming Sabbath! Willfults (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that our planet, as a mass of inorganic material, was created at the same time as the rest of the universe (In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth), long before the Creation week, long before the creation of intelligent life on other planets, and long before the creation of the angels and Lucifer (who was likely the first created person--'son of the morning'). The planet was uninhabitable, covered by a global sea and wrapped in a thick, dark cloudy layer of liquid water drops suspended in a dense water vapor atmosphere. It wasn't until after the fall of Lucifer that this planet was converted, during the creation week, to be the place chosen to play out the Great Controversy drama on display for the entire universe to watch.

If this planet's elements have existed, along with the universe, for vast ages, then it is possible that radiometric dating on rock might reflect an old age of the universe, though I doubt with much validity. The current surface features of this planet do not reflect the possible vast ages of the universe, but rather, primarily, that of a Global Flood some 4000 years ago and the significant changes to it previously during the creation week. The vast computed radiometric ages are completely irrelevant to the creationist concerning the fossil record and life on earth. We KNOW from the written word, how long ago and why life first appeared on this planet during the creation week. When this absolute knowledge of the origin of life on the planet disagrees with computed radiometric dates, then the radiometric dates must be wrongly applied. _8een4Tfor (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes its feasible that God created inorganic matter 4.56 billion years ago, and that a literal 6-day creation week still happened 6000 years ago, the Bible doesnt detail it out. But for Christians the belief in the literal 7 days of Creation by God is a matter of faith, the moment you start to give credit to the 'process of Evolution' rather than God, you are on a slippery slope, and that is what direction the emphasis can give with just a slight tweak.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not allow for any evolution of any sort. Indeed, it was 7 days of creation for the biosphere on this planet only some 6000 years ago. But the Bible indicates that the universe is much older. But 'much older' does not imply evolution in any way, shape, or form. It simiply means that the universe was created long ago. That the Angels were created long ago. That other intelligent life forms were created through out the universe over time since then. The creation of life on this planet is the last in a long history of creation of life in the universe. But in this specific instance this planet was made to be the battle ground between good and evil. We are the showcase for the universe to show what would happen in the entire universe if Satan had his way. _Allenroyboy (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated this again. The GRI article does not say that radiometric dating is "inaccurate". It says that it is not well understood and has uncertainties. I have placed a better wording. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may not allow for evolution, but those who push it will use it and say, 'see, the Adventist believe in evolution', and thats why it is best to leave it out, although I see Tonic has reworded it. Lets take a close look and see what we can all agree with....Simbagraphix (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This section (on creation) already begins with a statement saying that SDAs reject evolution. Isn't that clear enough? Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Tonic, presenting a theory mentioned in an article, that neither the article itself or the SDA church acknowledges as accurate, should not be placed in the beliefs of the SDA church period. I don't see why you continue to persist on adding this. Willfults (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And I don't know why you persist on removing this material. Here is the paragraph in full, from the GRI article:

Strategies for Accommodating Data This discussion has been limited to radiometric age data for inorganic minerals, especially those associated with fossils. Three strategies can be considered to accommodate these data to the chronologic data presented in the Scriptures.[footnote: These concepts were originally proposed by Robert H. Brown, retired director of Geoscience Research Institute.] 1. Ignore any data provided by radiometric techniques. 2. Assume that the Earth, Moon, and stars are only thousands of years old and that the radiometric data observed today are the result of processes that are not completely understood. (Some suggest the Earth was created with apparent age.) 3. Assume that the activities of a recent Creation week (thousands, not millions of years ago) involved large amounts of elementary inorganic matter that was previously created some 4.56 billion years ago.

All I have done is outline one strategy proposed by the article (taken from a former director of the GRI) to reconcile the data. This is entirely pertinent to the topic, as it shows how the SDA church is thinking about the topic of creation. The GRI is an official institute of the SDA church -- its proposals are entirely appropriate in this setting. Your only reason for not liking it is that you disagree theologically with what is proposed; you are attempting to censor a POV with which you do not agree. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, you have not shown how the GRI's proposal conflicts with official SDA affirmation. You added this sentence to the article: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church has reaffirmed a literal six day 24-hour creation week". The GRI's proposal does not contradict a literal 6 day creation week. It only says that some inorganic matter may have been created before creation week. The other contributors to this discussion have already pointed that out above. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Again Tonic, you're cherry picking the wording from the article. Not only does the author not agree with such a strategy but also in that same paragraph you quoted he states additional strategies are to "1. Ignore any data provided by radiometric techniques. OR 2. Assume that the Earth, Moon, and stars are only thousands of years old and that the radiometric data observed today are the result of processes that are not completely understood. (Some suggest the Earth was created with apparent age.) " Let me give an example of why picking just one theory is not in accordance with this article. I can find a ton of SDA articles that will talk about the seventy week prophecy of Daniel and perhaps say "one strategy or theory of theologians is that the last seven weeks of the prophecy are a seven year tribulation at the end of time". Of course, they then would disagree with such a position. Should a seven year tribulation or secert rapture theory be placed in an official sda belief article (and passed off as possible truth) because one person mentions it? Willfults (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with listing one prominent and credible alternative that coheres with other material in the immediate context (namely, the 28 Fundamentals book). The wording makes it clear that it is one proposed strategy among several. It remains obvious that your problem here is entirely one of POV. There is nothing in my wording that contravenes any Wikipedia policy. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The alternative strategy you are adding is not a prominent belief of the Adventist church, and in fact the article you cite speaks against the theory you are trying to add. The problem is you are trying to cite an article as passing off a alternative theory, when you didn't realize it states quite the opposite. Willfults (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Willfults, your continued activity on this article, Investigative Judgment and Sabbath in Christianity is disruptive and tenditious. Can you please stop. You delete well sourced materials, you make large scale revisions (often removing large swathes of good quality existing material) with minimal explanation, you assert your POV at the expense of others, you use false or deceptive edit summaries, and you fail to engage in constructive discussion. Your actions have not been supported by other editors, in fact, myself and other editors have opposed you on several occasions. I have done my best to attempt to reach consensus with you on several articles, and to engage with you on article talk pages. Despite repeated requests to discuss first and edit following the achievement of consensus, you keep resisting, and plowing ahead with your POV deletions and revisions.

In this particular instance, you have been unable to justify why this material does not belong here. No other editor has a problem with this material. You have rejected numerous compromises. It is clear that you simply oppose this material because it disagrees with your POV. A theory proposed by the former director of GRI, and implicitly supported by the 28 Fundamentals book (and might I add by Ellen White), and which does not in any way contradict the SDA adherence to literal creationism, is hardly a marginal theory.

As I have said before, I do not have a barrow to push regarding SDA theology. I am neither partial to the progressive side, nor the traditionalist side. I have been involved here for over 4 years, and during this time I have restrained some over-zealous progressive POVs. I see my role as to maintain balance and quality. Your goals are clearly not the same. May I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is perhaps not the right kind of place for you, as you do not seem capable of adhering to the etiquette here. Of course, if you have a change of heart, and wish to engage in constructive editing (in other words, preserving good content, engaging in discussion and consensus building, keeping the balance between different POVs and avoiding undue weight), I will be glad to work with you.

Now, before you jump in and revert AGAIN, can you please respond here on the talk page to my concerns, which I am raising in good faith. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to propose a constructive way forward. If you can restrain yourself from deleting material that you disagree with (even if it seems inadequately sourced), and simply add additional material that you feel needs to be there in the interests of balance, I think that we can make progress. Add, but do not delete. (See WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT.) Are you able to try this for a little while? Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, the problem Tonic, is that most of the material in Wikipedia appears to have initially been written from a Progressive view, and thus is not within the mainstream beliefs, so a lot has to be deleted, or reworded just to get it within what the mainstream or what Adventist believe.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Simbagraphix, I've avoided this quagmire until now but your comment reflects my feelings as well - with all due respect to primary authors' work on the topics. By their very nature, educational institutions attract people who are always proposing new theories - its part of what academics do. They publish these ideas in books and lecture in the universities about them, creating little tempests in teapots and that makes these people notable so they are overly quoted in Wikipedia while the 16,000,000 other Adventists in the heartland who don't give a flip about these tempests are completely non-notable. This makes the mainstream view under-represented in these articles. Indeed many of the articles give undue weight to progressivism due to the vocal nature of the so-called experts in the Adventist ghettos who the majority completely ignore. Now back on topic for this particular case, trying to harmonize the scientific uncertainties of the age of the earth with Adventism's teaching seems a bit beyond the scope of this article. Although I faintly understand why the quote is here, this is a general article about Seventh-day Adventist theology and one person's "proposed strategies" may belong in a more specific creation article that also quotes dozens of other notable's proposed strategies wringing out every conceivable theory of origins. Sdenny123 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You have hit the mark Sdenny123, it has been skewed with the view points of progressive thought and academics, and that is why we need the input from everyone to bring balance and present a true picture of Adventist thought and beliefs. I dont feel it is a unworkable quagmire, but from my experience you have to carefully bring a concensus of understanding, and expose the cleverly contrived false theories or private interpretations and extremism that seems to subtly work its way in, and this case I have to agree it belongs in a more specific creation article, and not in Adventist theology.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Friends, thank you for your comments. There are 2 separate issues here that we need to address.

Firstly, there is the method in which articles are edited. Firstly, I remain opposed to a method of editing which are disruptive and contravene Wikipedia policies. (eg. deleting well sourced and good quality material, making large scale revisions all at once, asserting one POV at the expense of others, using false or deceptive edit summaries, failing to engage in constructive discussion on talk pages.) This is largely the method that our friend Willfults has taken, and which I am seeking to persuade him away from.

Secondly, there is the issue of content. I am happy to listen to your suggestion that many of these articles currently lean too heavily in a progressive direction. That may well be the case, and I would like to try and rectify that. What I think these articles should do is, firstly, outline the "official" SDA position on a given topic (expressed in denominational publications and statements), before giving some space to alternative (either more conservative or more progressive) viewpoints. All should be done in line with policies on WP:NPOV. I think that the present articles on the Remnant, the 3 Angels Messages, and eschatology follow this pattern nicely.

If there is felt to be too much of a progressive bias, I think that the solution at the outset should not be to delete progressive material, but to add material from other view points to act as balance, while avoiding WP:UNDUE. I hope that we can achieve the right balance in all of these articles through a process of careful consensus building. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the creation matter, can I please point out again that what we have here is not the opinion of some random non-notable person, comparable to "every conceivable theory of origins", but a view expressed by the GRI which is an official institute of the SDA Church and its General Conference.

Fair enough, you could argue that the minimum that needs to be said here is "SDAs believe in a literal 6 day creation and a creation week which occurred 6 thousand years ago and a global flood". But virtually every discussion on creation raises questions of how this relates to the scientific opinion -- this is the question people have in their minds. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be informative. So when a prominent SDA who works for the very SDA institution which was created to investigate these scientific matters offers a theory that fits with what SDAs have always believed about the universe and other planets pre-existing the Earth (which is based on no less than what Ellen White wrote), I would think it rates a mention. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the non-SDA YEC group have been so successful that most SDA's don't realize that YEC interpretation of Genesis does not agree with Ellen White and the SDA church. When Henry Morris and John Whitcom borrowed George McCreedy Price's ideas (pretty much without making note of the fact because Price was a SDA) they added their own concepts which were contrary to Ellen White. Ellen tells that the Universe was not created at the same time as the creation week and that the universe was already filled with intelligent life before the creation week, which they rejected. Many SDA's have been education on creation by the YEC group and have not read Ellen's statements and this causes problems. 8een4Tfor (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Here is what the official denominational publication, "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" says in its chapter on creation.

Some people are puzzled, and understandably so, by the verses that say that God "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. 2:1; Ex. 20:11) and that He made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of Creation week 6, 000 years ago (Gen. 1:14-19). Were all heavenly bodies brought into existence at that time?

Creation week did not involve the heaven that God has dwelt in from eternity. The "heavens" of Genesis 1 and 2 probably refer to our sun and its system of planets.

Indeed, the earth, instead of being Christ's first creation, was most likely His last one. The Bible pictures the sons of God, probably the Adams of all the unfallen worlds, meeting with God in some distant corner of the universe (Job 1:6-12).

So far, space probes have discovered no other inhabited planets. They apparently are situated in the vastness of space—well beyond the reach of our sin-polluted solar system quarantined against the infection of sin.

Here is a list of Ellen White's statements indicating that other worlds pre-existed the Earth: http://grisda.net/subGi/earth-antedated-by-other-created-worlds/

The GRI consistently supports what the official publication and EGW say. All the following articles are supplied by the GRI:

• http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/17_1_groot_e.htm
• http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=54&journal=1&type=pdf
• http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_31B/31Bcc_159-181.pdf

Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Dear Ancos, here is my explanation for why some of your revision to the Lead was unjustified. Firstly, it is notable that SDAs believe in the authority and infallibility of Scripture -- this is what leads to their unique doctrines. It is not true that "Every religion believes in the authority of their own scripture" -- many Christian groups (eg. liberals) do not believe in the absolute authority of Scripture. Secondly, Adventist theology does resemble Protestantism on the core issues of faith. Not all Protestants reject conditionalism, indeed a significant minority of Protestants (eg. John Stott, Clark Pinnock, Edward Fudge, believe in Conditionalism -- see the article on Conditionalism). In any case "resemble" does not mean "identical". Thirdly, it is important for the lead to summarise the contents of the article. A positive sentence is needed, which emphasises that Adventism shares theology in common with other Christians. Your version put the emphasis on the distinctive teachings.

I have removed some of the things that you found more objectionable. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

abiogenesis fact no hypothesis

The WP article on abiogenesis states: "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes,..." In naturalism there is no question about IF it happened (after all, we exist), but only, HOW it happened. Abiogenesis is a fact of naturalism.

The artical continues: In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. These theories are about HOW it happens allowing replication and metabolism. They are not about If it happens. RVscholar (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Adventists find a 'fact of naturalism' to be contrary to their general thinking, I think. A fact, for them and perhaps others, is something you know for sure. Of course, people who believe in the literal account of Genesis 1-11, believe that they know for sure that God created the world in six literal days. So, as they consider the scientific 'fact' defined as something that the vast majority of scientists accept as true, they kind of scratch their heads and wonder. Then, on second thought, they say: nobody knows how it all got started, both groups have to have faith. This seems to bother naturalistic scientists. Afterall, if God did not create life in those six literal days, life had to come from somewhere. Therefore abiogenesis is a fact based on a logical understanding. Adventists usually find this bewildering. How can intelligent people not admit that they don't really know? Most naturalistic editors push the naturalistic viewpoint here at Wikipedia. Some want it a stated policy that Wikipedia defaults to a naturalistic viewpoint. I understand that this has been discussed and not accepted, at least not yet. But, some articles do not even allow for contrary debates to occur. I noticed this recently when reading some articles on higher criticism of the Bible. I noted that the articles on higher criticism did not have a criticism section. :) The usual rationale is that we cannot give undue weight to 'fringe' ideas. So what happens, sometimes, is that people reading certain articles, for example on higher criticism of the Bible, have no idea that a significant minority opposes what is written in the article. drs (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How facile: apologetics does not question whether any gods exist, soteriology does not question whether a particular religion is true, hamartiology does not question whether sin is a fiction; why then should the primary focus of abiogenesis be other than the exploration of possible mechanisms "how"? Blatant forum-shopping rasing this here of all places (appealing to avowed creationists over any group who actually studies the topics in question): it has now been established well beyond any reasonable doubt (notwithstanding those doubts which are contingent on traditional doctrinal upbringings rather than thorough education spanning relevant sciences) that present life evolved from comparitively simple ancestors and that the solar system had been here for aeons before that, so it's hardly a stretch to inquire what reason and evidence alone (without sectarian assumptions -- how puerile for DRS to label it a naturalistic "faith" merely to work with the factors everyone can observe) might say about the intervening step (and anyway note that abiogenesis makes no claims to knowing all the answers yet, only that its knowledge is gradually growing). Besides, since Craig Venter's group downloaded their artificial organism into formerly lifeless tissue, surely that alone amply justifies the existence of a field studying much more than just "if" lifeless can become life. Hardly any wonder that troll has gotten banned. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Different Q.: this article mentions that galaxies (of which there are many) may be billions of years old, and that in places beyond our planet life began earlier. Does SDA theology then accept that abiogenesis and biological evolution may have occured without any specific divine intervention, at least some places in the universe? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I have heard, or read. Adventists believe that God intentionally created by literal activity, either by word or action such as forming in the clay. Even the galaxies, made up of solar systems are viewed as having been made by a personal creator. These things are not part of official doctrine but the idea of life coming from nonlife is not acceptable to the Adventist mind. But, from my own perspective, as an Adventist, it is certainly acceptable to try to create life from nonlife. Recall, before man set foot on the moon, some theologians, including some Adventists, said that God would not allow the 'sinless' moon to be corrupted by sinners. There is nothing like a strong dose of the obvious to change one's views of things. drs (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Johnjonesjr blocked

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive - his edits can be reverted at will, put 'sockpuppet edit reverted' in the edit summary if you revert. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Human nature of Jesus Christ

Not a forum. Please don't violate WP:TALK.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:BRD I am reverting the recent good-faith revisions by Simbagraphix in this section. I am concerned that there are issues of inaccuracy and POV. Importantly, it is not appropriate to recruit EGW to any side in this debate as she is claimed to support each of the different perspectives. These matters should be discussed properly prior to any further revision. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Similarly, I have removed revisions from the sinless perfection section which are not NPOV and inappropriately recruit EGW (and the Bible!) to one POV. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Tonic, I appreciate your help on this issue and will bring more sources to show these are the Mainstream Adventist belief and supported by the early Adventist church, the pioneers and writings of Ellen White, let me know what you need point by point and we can work through it. Allow me to put in one paragraph at a time and we can discuss it here to see if any issues. Simbagraphix (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC) That Jesus took on Adams "human nature" after the fall is Adventist doctrine so lets begin with that part: .—"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is en­compassed, 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Him­self took our infirmities, and bare our sick­nesses.' He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He 'knew no sin.' He was the Lamb 'without blemish and without spot.' Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Sav­iour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. He took "man's nature in its fallen condition," but "Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131. "He came as a helpless babe, bearing the humanity we bear."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.7 Bible Commentary, p.925. “Christ could have done nothing during His earthly ministry in saving fallen man if the divine had not been blended with the human. The limited capacity of man cannot define this wonderful mystery—the blending of the two natures, the divine and the human. It can never be explained. Man must wonder and be silent. And yet man is privileged to be a partaker of the divine nature, and in this way he can to some degree enter into the mystery.”[The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 904] "Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. . He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. He united humanity with divinity: a divine Spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh." [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 4 p. 1147.] "The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their orig­inal state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral de­generacy prevailed throughout the human family When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to en­dure."--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed."—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. "The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him."—The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897. "He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was His own act, and by His own consent."—The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887. "Letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature." —The Review and Herald, February 18, 1890. "Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness. He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity." —The Review and Herald, December 15,1896. “Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. As the children are partakes of flesh and blood, He also, Himself, likewise took part of the same. He was the son of Mary; He was the seed of David according to human descent.”[The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.] "As one of us He was to give an example of obedience. For this He took upon Himself our nature, and passed through our experiences. . By His humanity, Christ touched humanity; by His divinity, He lays hold upon the throne of God. As the Son of man, He gave us an example of obedience; as the Son of God, He gives us power to obey." Desire oF Ages, 24. Whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically or innately. His taking the burden of our inherited weakness and failings, even after four thousand years of accumulated infirmities and degeneracy (The Desire of Ages, pp. 49, 117) 'It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life..... Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of hu­manity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."—The Desire of Ages, p. 49. "Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal." Desire of Ages. 112. "Christ took upon Himself humanity, that He might reach humanity. . . . It required both the divine and the human to bring salvation to the world.—The Desire of Ages, p. 296. "Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sus­tained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours."—The Desire of Ages, p. 311. "Taking human nature fitted Christ to understand the nature of man's trials, and all the temptations wherewith he is beset. . It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man that He might be made perfect through suffering and Himself endure the strength of Satan's fierce temptations, that He might understand how to succor those who should be tempted." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 2, 39. “The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and identified itself with the weaknesses and necessities of fallen man, while His divine nature grasped the Eternal. His work in bearing the guilt of man’s transgression was not to give him license to continue to violate the law of God, which made man a debtor to the law, which debt Christ was Himself paying by His own suffering. The trials and sufferings of Christ were to impress man with a sense of his great sin in breaking the law of God, and to bring him repentance and obedience to that law, and through obedience to acceptance with God. His righteousness He would impute to man, and thus raise him in moral value with God, so that his efforts to keep the divine law would be acceptable. Christ’s work was to reconcile man to God through His human nature, and God to man through His divine nature.”[Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 272, 273. ] "He condescended to connect our fallen nature with His divinity. . Having taken our fallen nature. ."[Selected Messages, book 3 , pp. 134.] He voluntarily subjected "Himself to all the humbling conditions of man's nature" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 458) "Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth—in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin."—Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 286. “Satan with all his synagogue—for Satan claims to be religious—determined that Christ should not carry out the counsels of heaven. After Christ was baptized, He bowed on the banks of the Jordan; and never before had heaven listened to such a prayer as came from His divine lips. Christ took our nature upon Himself. The glory of God, in the form of a dove of burnished gold, rested upon Him, and from the infinite glory was heard these words, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’”[Temperance, p. 284] “That Christ should take human nature, and by a life of humiliation elevate man in the scale of moral worth with God: He should carry His adopted nature to the throne of God, and there present His children to the Father, to have conferred upon them an honor exceeding that conferred upon the angels,—this is the marvel of the heavenly universe, the mystery into which angels desire to look.”[Sons and Daughters of God, p. 22] "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.”["—Medical Ministry, p. 181 "Christ alone had experience in all the sorrows and temptations that befall human beings. Never another of woman born was so fiercely beset by temptation; never another bore so heavy a burden of the world's sin and pain. Never was there another whose sympathies were so broad or so tender. A sharer in all the experiences of humanity, He could feel not only for, but with, every burdened and tempted and struggling one."—Education, p. 78. "Many hold that from the nature of Christ it was impossible for Satan's temptations to weaken or overthrow Him. Then Christ could not have been placed in Adam's position. to go over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If man has in any sense a more trying conflict to endure than had Christ. then Christ is not able to succor him when tempted. Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, capable of yielding to temptation; and. with the same aid that man may obtain, He withstood the temptations of Satan and conquered the same as we may conquer . . He assumed human nature. being the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. It is not true that humanity has trials to bear which the Son of God has not experience." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Spirit of Sacrifice" a special testimony (Senior Division, No. 41, Third Quarter. 1905, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association), 89. Jesus was God acting in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner. He made Himself one with humanity. "International Sabbath School Quarterly. "Baptism and Temptation of Jesus, " Senior Division, No. 56, Second Quarter, 1909, Pacific Press, 20. "By assuming sinful flesh, and voluntarily making Himself dependent upon His Father to keep Him from sin while He was in the world, Jesus not only set the example for all Christians, but also made it possible for Him to minister for sinful flesh the gift of His own Spirit and the power for obedience to the will of God. "International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the Priesthood" (Senior Division, No. 71, First Quarter. 1913. Pacific Press). 15. "Christ assumed, not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment. He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but as has already been said, with intense odds against Him. ."International Sabbath School Quarterly. "The Purpose of the Incarnation" (Senior Division. No.103. First Quarter. 1921), 248-249. The Seventh-day Adventist teaching regarding Christ's human nature entered thousands of non-Adventist homes tucked between the covers of Bible Readings for the Home Circle under the heading, ' Sinless Life': .. 'In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful. fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. . On His human side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit." Bible Readings For the Home, Review and Herald, 174 (1942). " 'Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach 'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' "Frances D. Nichol, Answers to Objections, Review and Herald, 1952,389. Yet Christ was without sin, the "spiritual nature" of Adam before the fall without the sinful desire or propensity to sin. "In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God, . . . "That holy thing which shall be born of thee [Mary] shall be called the Son of God." . . . Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet he without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, pp. 1128, 1129. "We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. "—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. "I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset. . . . On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any ad­vantage. Satan found nothing in Him to en­courage his advances."—The SDA Bible Com­mentary, vol. 5, p. 1129. "The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him."—The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897. He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man."—Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901. "He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions."—Testimonies, vol.2, p.202. The Son of God "became like one of us, except in sin."—The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 20, 1886. Now after QoD we see the clarification of Adventist doctrine on the moral/spiritual nature: "When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the second Adam." [R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal.Ministry. April, 1957.] "Christ took the spiritual nature of man before the fall, and the physical nature of man after the fall." [N. R. Gulley, Christ Our Substitute, 33, Senior Sabbath School Quarterly for the First Quarter of 1983] "Christ's humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the fall, nor fallen humanity; that is in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen, It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity, but without sin," [Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 47/1:4-47/ 2:0. 1988] Adventist doctrine is Christ could have sin, he was not 'impecable'. "Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test."—The Desire of Ages, p. 117 “Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgression. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him and evil propensity.”[The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128] “Through the victory of Christ the same advantages that He had are provided for man; for he may be a partaker of a power out of and above himself, even a partaker of the divine nature, by which he may overcome the corruption that is in the world through lust.”[The Signs of the Times, April 25, 1892] I could find more on it, but I dont want to flood the page, this is mainstream Adventist belief and doctrine, let me know if more sources are needed. Simbagraphix (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks, will get back to this in a day or three -- a bit busy right now. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Carry on, but more carefully

There is no doubt that there is controversy over these issues. We should document it. It is not our job to settle any of the issues here. We're writing an encyclopedia, and this isn't an SDA blog or personal discussion group.

Determine what RS say about the various sides, and document them very succinctly, without taking sides, and leave it at that. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell: The issue is that Simbagraphix was using Ellen G White's writings (a primary source) to back up his claim as to what is "mainstream" in Adventist theology. This is not legit because the different sides of the controversy all claim EGW supported them. That's the problem with citing primary sources in this way -- it amounts to WP:OR. Primary sources are interpreted differently by different people. This is all covered in WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY.

As I said, I'm too busy over the next few days to address this in more detail and will get to it a bit later, after Xmas. Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to check closer, it was many, not just E. G. White, and show what Adventist hold on the nature of Christ. We have from the General Conference Bulletins, and other non EGW sources on the physical nature:

"The garment was woven in Jesus, in the same flesh that you and I have, for He took part of the same flesh and blood that we have. . In my flesh; it was my flesh that He had, It was your flesh that He had, . The Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which I live," A. T. Jones, General Conference-Bulletin 1893

"Therefore, just as certainly as we see Jesus lower than the angels, unto the suffering of death, so certainly it is by this demonstration that, as man, Jesus took the nature of man as he is since death entered: and not the nature of man as he was before He became subject to death." A. T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1895.

"Christ assumed, not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment. He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but as has already been said, with intense odds against Him. ."International Sabbath School Quarterly. "The Purpose of the Incarnation" (Senior Division. No.103. First Quarter. 1921), 248-249.

From Answers to Objections--An Examination of The Major Objections Raised Against The Teachings of Seventh-Day. Adventists, " 'Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach 'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' "Frances D. Nichol, Answers to Objections, Review and Herald, 1952,389.

And the "moral/spiritual nature" of Adam before the fall without the sinful desire or propensity to sin.

"Christ took the spiritual nature of man before the fall, and the physical nature of man after the fall." [N. R. Gulley, Christ Our Substitute, 33, Senior Sabbath School Quarterly for the First Quarter of 1983]

"Christ's humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the fall, nor fallen humanity; that is in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen, It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity, but without sin," [Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 47/1:4-47/ 2:0. 1988]

Need to look closer at the nutshell..Simbagraphix (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

When you are ready Tonic, I propose we go through all the sources as needed to get this correct. Let me know, thanks...Simbagraphix (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Simbagraphix. AT Jones is a PS so is not suitable. Any material from before the 1950s is not suitable to represent modern mainstream Adventist belief (it can only be used to document the historic position). Suitable sources are the SDA Bible Commentary and SDAs Believe.

From my reading of all the reliable sources, the post 1950s mainstream position is that Jesus had an unfallen spiritual nature and a fallen physical nature - he was subject to illness and physical pain, but had no sinful desires. Would you agree with that? This is already accurately outlined in the article so I see no need to go further. Tonicthebrown (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Tonic, I would have to say that is not a correct reading as Adventist doctrine was not what changed but understanding the "mystery" of the nature of Christ. A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner and what they taught are considered highly by Adventist and supported by Ellen White. What OoD did was to point out what Ellen White had always said that even though Christ had come as flesh, taking upon Himself our fallen nature, yet did not participate in its sin and was perfectly sinless.

Compare:

"In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He “knew no sin.” He was the Lamb “without blemish and without spot.” Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour’s head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam...We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.— "—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.

"Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. . He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. He united humanity with divinity: a divine Spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh." [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 4 p. 1147.]

"He came as a helpless babe, bearing the humanity we bear."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.7 Bible Commentary, p.925.

This is the Adventist doctrine, that He took the nature but not the sinfulness of man, His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. He took "man's nature in its fallen condition," but "Christ did not in the least participate in its sin." Adventist hold and have taught that Christ was without sin, essentially the "spiritual nature" of Adam before the fall without the sinful desire or propensity to sin.

"Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet he without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, pp. 1128, 1129.

"I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset. . . . On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any ad­vantage. Satan found nothing in Him to en­courage his advances."—The SDA Bible Com­mentary, vol. 5, p. 1129.

Adventist doctrine is Christ could have sin, he was not 'impecable', as was born with "inherent propensities of disobedience" but did not develop or have sinful desires the "propensities of sin" as you see here:

“Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgression. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him and evil propensity.”[The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128]

Now the few snippets from QoD support this:

III. Took Sinless Human Nature pp. 650-652 "Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure."—The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898.

"When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure."—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

Notice it says, "In purity and holiness, connected with God", as Adventist have always held that Christ came wholly dependent on the Father as a example of obedience, and the moral/spiritual nature was sinless.

Now compare that to anther The Youth's Instructor: "When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan’s kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power."—The Youth’s Instructor, April 25, 1901. And to the Review and Herald of the same period, "Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness. He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity." —The Review and Herald, December 15,1896.

Then back to QoD:

IV. Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature pp. 653-654

"Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent."—The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

"Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed."—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

"The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family." —The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

And compare to the Review and Herald, of the same period even same issue:

"Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed."—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness. He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity." —The Review and Herald, December 15,1896.

As I agreed with your words "Jesus was only in Adam's (pre-fall) nature in the sense that he had no inclination toward sin. In other words, in his moral or spiritual nature he was unfallen." This is correct, but in the flesh as man, Jesus was exactly where every other man was when He came, in Adam's (post-fall) nature, He accepted mans nature when it had been weakened by four thousand years of sin, and yet was sinless. Thus you have the following:

"Christ's humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the fall, nor fallen humanity; that is in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen, It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity, but without sin," [Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 47/1:4-47/ 2:0. 1988]

Now at this point we have, "Mainstream Adventists since 1950 believe that while Jesus was beset with the physical frailties that ordinary humans experience, such as sickness and hunger, His spiritual nature was unfallen and did not have the propensity to sin, but He came with the effects of the fallen flesh nature inherited from Adam[67][68][69] . Christ could be tested by temptation, but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations"

We can adjust it to something along the lines "Mainstream Adventists since 1950 believe that while Jesus like all mankind, was beset with the infirmities of the fallen flesh nature inherited from Adam, His spiritual nature was unfallen and did not have the propensity to sin. Christ could be tested by temptation, but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations", which is supported by Answers to Objections, " 'Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach 'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' [Frances D. Nichol, Answers to Objections, An Examination of The Major Objections Raised Against The Teachings of Seventh-Day Adventists-. 1952,389.]

Let me know what you think....Simbagraphix (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a lot of material to wade through. At the end of the day, it appears to me that the article content is already consistent with the reliable secondary sources, including the ones you have cited above. I don't see the need to make major changes. OTOH I don't object to copyedits which improve clarity and provide additional reliable, modern, secondary sources. We should discuss them here before amending the article.

I could agree to this

"Mainstream Adventists since 1950 believe that while Jesus inherited the fallen physical nature of Adam, with its infirmities, His spiritual nature was unfallen and did not have the propensity to sin. Christ could be tested by temptation, but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations."

Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream Adventist do not believe it was just the physical, as that is just a body, it was also the degenerated mental weakness and genetic infirmities, from four thousand years of sin. As it says in the SDA Bible Commentary, "He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128] Adventist believe that Christ took humanity with all its liabilities, the effects or "infirmities" on the mind and body, " Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience.”[The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128], but yet did not sin. This is a central core belief of Adventism and has never changed, only some have misunderstood it or tried to misinterpret. So it should state that it was more than just the body, so it needs to include the completeness in its liabilities of His nature, such as the following.

"Mainstream Adventists since 1950 believe that while Jesus inherited the effects of the fallen flesh nature of Adam with its infirmities, His spiritual nature was unfallen and did not have the propensity to sin. Christ could be tested by temptation, but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations."

Simbagraphix (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If mainstream SDAs teach / believe that Christ's mental faculties were affected by the fallen nature , this has to be backed up clearly by RS. From what has been provided above, I cannot see this. The sources speak of infirmities, weaknesses and suffering and it is not clear that mental defects are included.

"Fallen flesh nature" is not appropriate wording. This terminology is not used in any of the sources, so it is OR. It is also ambiguous what it actually means. "Flesh" is a theologically loaded word. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is understanding that Adventist hold that the mental along with the physical was degraded after Adam fell, as we see in the following, "When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. He stood in the strength of his perfection before God. All the organs and faculties of his being were equally developed, and harmoniously balanced.

Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam’s place to bear the test he failed to endure. Here Christ overcame in the sinner’s behalf, four thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. Separated from the presence of God, the human family had been departing every successive generation, farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed....In what contrast is the second Adam as He entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan single-handed. Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ’s advent to the earth. And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He, who knew no sin, became sin for us. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that He might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him" [The SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, Page 1081]

Notice it says "the human family had been departing every successive generation, farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man." and "Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ’s advent to the earth." So all the effects including the mental aspects of knowledge and acuteness of mental discernment and soundness of judgment.

So I propose we use the following wording which encompasses but does not stress the mental aspects and touches on the main points of Adventist beliefs which have always been held but become more focused since 1950, "Mainstream Adventists believe that while Jesus inherited the effects of and took upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam as every child of Adam who has come into the world with its infirmities and liabilities, His spiritual nature was unfallen and did not have the propensity to sin. Christ could be tested by temptation, but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations."

This is supported by the following, "He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. . He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset." [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 4 p. 1147.] and also by “Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgression. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him and evil propensity.”[The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128] and "In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He “knew no sin.” He was the lamb “without blemish and without spot.” [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131]

It also is clearly laid out in the following, "The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him."—The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.

Thanks, and Happy new year. I do not object to the idea that Christ's mental faculties were subject to the effects of the fall, but providing a source is important. That first reference from SDA Bible commentary is adequate.

I suggest this wording-

"Mainstream Adventists since 1950 believe that Jesus inherited the fallen human nature of Adam, with its infirmities and liabilities. However His spiritual nature was unfallen and did not have the propensity to sin. Christ was tested by temptation, but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations." Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that is satisfactory and if you could do the changes accordingly, thank you for the help Tonic, it is greatly appreciated. And as we say in Spanish, 'Prosperous anos y felicidad'....Simbagraphix (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I've made the revision. I checked SDAs Believe, which makes Christ's mental weaknesses explicit, so I've re-worded slightly to make it explicit here. Are you happy with that? Thanks for your work on this, and for supplying the sources. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks good, as always I thank you for your assistance as doctrines and beliefs can be much harder than one would imagine. Simbagraphix (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)