A Critique of the 51 Movement’s Stance

As far as the history of Adventism is concerned, there have been three different interpretations of the human nature of Christ¹ , and they are briefly as follows:

1) The Traditional Christology, or the Postlapsarian Position
This is called postlapsarian because Christ came in the same human nature of Adam after the Fall. Therefore, when Christ was born on this earth, he took on human flesh that had been degenerated for over 4000 years, and thus had to bear the results of sin in His body, such as weaknesses, infirmities and liabilities. In addition to this, Christ took on sinful human flesh, that had begun with Adam after his fall, and thus had to continually war against the lusts, the evil propensities² and evil inclinations of His flesh, but never once, in His entire life, gave in, or responded, to its inner temptations. This view had its preeminence from the early 1850s up until the early 1950s.

2) The New Christology, or the Prelapsarian Position
This is called prelapsarian because Christ came in the same human nature of Adam before the Fall. Therefore, when Christ was born on this earth, He took on human flesh that had never sinned, nor was it physically corrupt in any way, therefore, His flesh was holy and immaculate. As a result, He was never tempted from within, but only from without. In addition to this, “‘whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically³ or innately⁴ …. All that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature – all was taken and borne vicariously.’ ‘Vicariously He took our sinful, fallen nature…. He bore our weaknesses, our temptations, vicariously⁵, in the same way He bore our iniquities.”⁶ This view began in the early 1950s.

3) The Alternative Christology
This is a mixture of the Traditional and New Christology because Christ came in the human nature of Adam before and after the Fall. Therefore, when Christ was born on this earth, he took on human flesh that had been degenerated for over 4000 years, and thus had to bear the results of sin in His body, such as weaknesses, infirmities and liabilities. However, unlike the Traditional position, Christ was never born with sinful flesh, and thus never had to continually war against the lusts, the evil propensities and evil inclinations of His flesh. Therefore, essentially, Christ was also tempted only from without, and not from within, which basically, again, agrees with the New Christology in that His flesh was holy and immaculate. This view is the most recent, having started in the 1980s, and probably the most popular in Adventism.
Interestingly, all three interpretations of the human nature of Christ claim to have their support from the Bible and from the Spirit of Prophesy. Therefore, if Ellen White’s writings can be interpreted in three different ways, then something is greatly wrong here. However, the purpose of this article is not necessarily to elucidate in greater detail the three interpretations of the human nature of Christ⁷, but rather to determine in which category the 51 Movement belongs to in regards to their current view of the human nature of Christ, which is shown in the appendix at the end of this article.

Point 1:

The first point involves a resolution concerning the human nature of Christ which the 51 Movement had passed in their 1987 GC session. It reads in part as follows:

“While He (Christ) took our fallen nature, we believe in harmony with what is written that there is in Him no evil propensity to sin, but that he was tempted from without, not from within (John 14:30; James 1:14), in all points as we are yet without sin.”

Essentially, they are saying that Christ, and interestingly also the rest of humankind, was never tempted from within, but only from without. Let it suffice for now to have only the Spirit of Prophecy provide a refutation. Later, the scriptural basis of the human nature of Christ will answer in more detail points one and points two.

Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 47:
“Some feel their need of the atonement, and with the recognition of this need, and the desire for a change of heart, a struggle begins. To renounce their own will, perhaps their chosen objects of affection or pursuit, requires an effort, at which many hesitate and falter and turn back. Yet this battle must be fought by every heart that is truly converted. We must war against temptations without and within.”

Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 222:
“A man may be trying to serve God, but temptations from within and from without assail him. Satan and his angels urge and coax him to transgress.”8

Ministry of Healing, p. 130:
“Apart from divine power, no genuine reform can be effected. Human barriers against natural and cultivated tendencies are but as the sandbank against the torrent. Not until the life of Christ becomes a vitalizing power in our lives can we resist the temptations that assail us from within and from without.” ⁹

Review and Herald, April 29, 1884:
“Every one of us needs to have a deep insight into the teachings of the word of God. Our minds must be prepared to stand every test, and to resist every temptation, whether from without or from within.”

Signs of the Times, April 19, 1883:
“We tremble for the youth of our day, because of the example that is given them by those who profess to be Christians. We cannot close the door of temptation to the youth, but we can educate them that their words and their actions may have a direct bearing upon their future happiness or misery. They will be exposed to temptation. They will meet foes without and foes within, but they can be instructed to stand firm in their integrity, having moral principle to resist temptation.”

Review and Herald, September 8, 1874:
“What appreciation can such have of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and the victory he gained upon the point of appetite.”

After surveying a few examples of the passages shown above, it is extremely hard to imagine how anyone could have stated that we are not tempted from within, and how anyone could have failed to notice the statements above. Since it is true that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, as the 51 Movement agrees, and that we are tempted from without and from within, then undoubtedly the logic concludes that Christ was also tempted from without and from within.

Point 2:

The second point involves a resolution concerning the human nature of Christ which the 51 Movement had passed in their 1999 GC session. It was an attempt to explain further and to reinforce their resolution that they had passed 13 years earlier. It reads in part as follows:

“We re-emphasize that there were no evil propensities or tendencies to sin in Christ’s human nature.”

“Christ partook of ‘our sinful nature’ (ST July 30, 1902; MM 180), and was thus encompassed with infirmities, weakness and liabilities (2T 202, 508, 509; DA 49; 1SM 253; 3SM 131, 132; 4BC 1147:4), but He had no evil propensities or evil tendencies in His human nature. Evil tendencies or evil propensities are evil leanings, inclinations, and bias. These reside in our minds not in our physical flesh (AH 127, 128). Christ had none of these in His mind or flesh (human nature).”

The term “human nature” can have different connotations depending in what context it is used in. Therefore, one has to be informed of the terminology the 51 Movement use in these statements. As it is evident on the very last sentence of the second paragraph, by “human nature,” in both of these paragraphs, they only mean “human flesh.” They claim that there were no evil propensities or evil tendencies in Christ’s flesh, AND in our flesh. And by “sinful nature” they only mean taking on flesh with its results from sin, namely, the infirmities, weaknesses and liabilities, where the SDAs, quoting Henry Melvill, an Anglican minister of the 19th century, calls these infirmities as “innocent infirmities” such as “hunger, pain, sorrow, etc.”¹⁰ But the 51 Movement does not consider the human flesh of Christ as being sinful, which is different from the “innocent infirmities.”

We now need to take a look at the biblical evidence that supports the fact that our human flesh, and likewise Christ’s human flesh, is indeed sinful.

The apostle John shows very clearly the natural condition of the human flesh when he states, “For all that (is) in the world: the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.” (1 John 2:16)

If it is true that our flesh does not have evil tendencies or evil propensities, then how was it possible for John to state the very opposite, namely, that our natural flesh lusts, and continues to do so? John clearly states that the epithumia of the flesh, namely, the lusts and cravings of the flesh are all from the world, not from God. And these lusts of the flesh are indeed sinful, for if one loves them the love of God would not be in him (v. 15). The 51 Movement’s teaching that our flesh is not sinful, namely, that they do not have evil propensities or evil tendencies, is totally ludicrous¹¹ and is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the apostle John.

It is very strange that the 51 Movement backs up their statement that evil propensities or evil tendencies reside only in our mind, and not in our flesh with The Adventist Home, pp. 127, 128. When one reads them, they will find that it actually speaks contrary to what they have stated. We will explain the passage of debate, namely:

“The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words ‘flesh’ or ‘fleshly’ or ‘carnal lusts’ embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts.”

Here Ellen White specifically states that the flesh has a lower passion, that it embraces the lower, corrupt nature. We are to crucify this flesh, which contains affections and lusts.¹² This is perfectly in harmony with Apostle John’s understanding of the “lust of the flesh.” By stating that our flesh consists of affections and lusts, it straightly nullifies their statement that there are neither evil propensities nor evil tendencies in our flesh.

If there was one person to have forever settled the issue of what type of flesh Christ, and we, came in, and to truly experience the war against the flesh, it would be the apostle Paul. Paul states clearly, concerning Christ, that God sent “his own son in (the) likeness of sinful flesh.”¹³ (Rom. 8:3). Here, Paul provides a crystal-clear definition of the human flesh that is to be understood in all other occurrences of “flesh” in regards to human flesh, namely, that all who have been born from Adam since his fall all have “sinful flesh,” including Christ’s human flesh. This one statement from the apostle alone is enough to refute any other claims that our flesh does not have evil propensities or evil tendencies.

The apostle strengthens and builds up his claim of “sinful flesh,’ namely, that the flesh has evil tendencies, just in previous chapters, where he states not to let sin reign in our bodies, to obey its lusts (Rom. 6:12), that no good thing dwelled in his flesh (Rom. 7:18), that sin dwelled in him (vss. 17, 20). Then, “But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and taking me captive by the law of sin which is in my members.” (v. 23). The Greek word melos refers to a part of the body. The plural form, mele, which is used here in this verse, then refers to all the parts, or members, of the body making up the whole. Therefore, Paul states that sin is in the entire body, in all of its parts. Anyone who states that humans are never tempted from within, that our mind never struggles against the lusts of the flesh, would have been totally foreign to the apostle, and would be totally foreign to each of our own personal experiences. Paul clearly states that the law of sin is in our members, our body, our human flesh. In the next verse, because his flesh was sinful, Paul condemns his own body (v. 24). And he finally concludes the chapter saying that the mind shall serve the law of God, while the flesh continues to serve the law of sin (v. 25). ¹⁴

In these verses above, as we have seen, there is absolutely no indication that the human flesh is holy and immaculate, that the human flesh does not have evil propensities or evil tendencies, that the mind is never tempted from within by the flesh. To believe that the flesh is likewise so, whether one believes in the new christology or the alternative christology, is to believe that Christ’s human flesh was also holy and immaculate, and this is nothing more than the false doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary of the Roman Catholic Church, which ultimately leads to the papacy’s goal of Marian worship.

Out of the many places where Ellen White uses the phrase “likeness of sinful flesh,” either from a direct quote from Apostle Paul or from her own words, just a few will certainly suffice to show the fact that all humanity are born with sinful flesh, and likewise Christ was born with sinful flesh.

Bible Echo, December 15, 1892:
“The Redeemer of the world might have come attended by ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of angels; but instead of this He clothed his divinity with humanity, made Himself of no reputation, took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.”

ST, February 20, 1893:
“He made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. For our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich.”

ST, April 11, 1895:
“Those who have experienced the blessing of God should be the most grateful of persons. They should send up to God words of thanksgiving because Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, clothing his divinity with humanity, in order that he might bring before the world the perfection of God in his own character.”

ST, May 16, 1895:
“We are too much in the habit of thinking that the Son of God was a being so entirely exalted above us that it is an impossibility for him to enter into our trials and temptations, and that he can have no sympathy with us in our weakness and frailties. This is because we do not take in the fact of his oneness with humanity. He took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, and was made in all points like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God.”

ST, July 2, 1896:
“In the councils of heaven the Lord planned to reshape the broken, perverted characters of man, and to restore to them the moral image of God. This work is termed the mystery of godliness. Christ, the only-begotten of the Father, assumed human nature, came in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh.”

Youth’s Instructor, August 23, 1894:
“Let children bear in mind that the child Jesus had taken upon himself human nature, and was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was tempted of Satan as all children are tempted.”

Ellen White clearly equates “human nature” with “sinful flesh.” The apostle John warns that anyone who does not accept that Christ came in sinful flesh has, not the Spirit of God, but rather the spirit of antichrist (1John 4:2, 3). The 51 Movement is antichrist since they are doing just that, because they are denying that Christ came in sinful flesh, therefore, by Apostle John’s own words, the Spirit of God is truly not in them.¹⁵ The papacy succeeded in infiltrating the SDA with Catholicism, and now likewise with the 51 Movement.

There have been two major errors that have been propagated in the church, namely, the doctrine of the immaculate conception, and the doctrine of original sin. In order to view Christ as having a sinless human nature, the councils of the Catholic church believed it was necessary to invent the immaculate conception of Mary, with the result that Christ would then, also, be born immaculate. Protestantism, on the other hand, believed in the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, where it states that because of Adam’s original sin, all descendants that had ever come from him were automatically born sinners, and were automatically guilty. Since Christ was to be our Saviour, it was not possible for Him to be born a sinner and to be guilty at the same time, so then it was necessary to invent the doctrine that Christ took on the human nature identical to that of Adam’s before his fall. Whether one believes in the immaculate conception of Mary, or the doctrine of original sin, the results are the same, namely, that Christ had holy flesh, which is nothing more than the doctrine of the papacy.

The Bible speaks nothing about the immaculate conception or the doctrine of original sin. Likewise, all the Adventist pioneers rejected them. One does not become a sinner, and thereby becoming guilty, at birth. However, one does become a sinner, and likewise guilty, from the moment they commit their very first sin, and we all have fallen, we are all sinners and guilty, because “all sinned” (Rom. 3:23). However, Christ never sinned in His entire life, therefore, He was neither a sinner nor was He guilty.

So serious and important is the true understanding of the doctrine of Christ’s human flesh, that the reason why Ellen White left Australia to head back to the United States was solely to combat the holy flesh movement that had been propagated in the state of Indiana.¹⁶ Regarding the situation of this movement and its teachings, she wrote, “Last January the Lord showed me that erroneous theories and methods would be brought into our camp meetings, and that the history of the past would be repeated. I felt greatly distressed. I was instructed to say that at these demonstrations demons in the form of men are present, working with all the ingenuity that Satan can employ to make the truth disgusting to sensible people; that the enemy was trying to arrange matters so that the camp meetings, which have been the means of bringing the truth of the third angel’s message before multitudes, should lose their force and influence.”¹⁷ Then she adds, “The third angel’s message … is to be kept free from every thread of the cheap, miserable inventions of men’s theories, prepared by the father of lies, and disguised as was the brilliant serpent used by Satan as a medium of deceiving our first parents.”¹⁸ (Emphasis mine). Notice here that the third angel’s message must be carefully guarded, and have the pure understanding of the human nature of Christ. If Ellen White were alive today, she would look for the church that keeps the Ten Commandments of God, and the pure doctrine of the sinful flesh of Christ, and that would certainly not be the Seventh-day Adventist Church or the 51 Movement.

After considering the above evidences, the 51 Movement belongs to those who believe in the alternative christology. Therefore, the guilt of the 51 Movement lies in their acceptance of the false doctrine of original sin, resulting in the sin of omission. They took only parts of the Bible, and parts of the Spirit of Prophecy, and then made a doctrine out of it, without considering the entire evidence.¹⁹ In the 1987 GC session, they stated that “all our teaching should be based on a ‘thus saith the Lord’, and not on individual opinions.” However, based on the above study, they have done the exact opposite: by stating only opinions which are not based on sound biblical doctrine.

Let it be known that the reason why God allowed the split to happen in 1951 of the Reform Movement was because He already knew that the descendants of those 11 delegates who left the 1951 GC session meeting room in administrative protest would, a little over 30 years down the line, become antichrist and teach a catholic doctrine. This deadly sin of the 51 Movement fornicating with Catholicism has been out in the open for at least 16 years now. Just as the Adventist leaders rejected the Christ our Righteousness message in 1888, so likewise the 51 Movement leaders, after three times²⁰, rejected the Christ our Righteousness message in 1999.

In Revelation 14, it speaks of the 144,000 who are undefiled with women, because they are virgins (v. 4), they hold onto the pure truth of the Bible. The 144,000, who are produced only in the time of the end, are not polluted in any way with the fallen churches, relationally or doctrinally. In Revelation 18, Christ calls all those who had been defiled by her to come out of her, in order that they no longer participate in her sins, and that they not receive her plagues (v. 4).
Therefore, may the Lord help the true Adventist Reform Movement – holding to the firm foundations of the Great Advent Movement, and the firm foundation of the upholding of God’s Ten Commandments in 1914 – the International Missionary Society, to help and minister to the honest souls in the 51 Movement who are willing to escape the false teachings of their leaders bound in Catholicism, over to those who are fervently keeping the Ten Commandments of God, and the true faith of Jesus, including the pure biblical doctrine of the human sinful flesh of Christ.

Jeffrey Ho, Vancouver, Canada

Appendix

Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement 18th General Conference Session. 1999. Temporary Doctrinal Committee

Agenda, Item 5. – Human Nature of Christ (relating to sinful tendencies/leanings in the flesh) Does the human nature have sinful tendencies, propensities to sin, or passions to evil in His physical flesh?

After considering the reasons for presenting this question, and the reading of resolutions (#44, 1987: #68, 1995), it was proposed that a statement be sent to the Australasian Union as follows:

Statement
In harmony with our resolution #44, 1987,
“We believe that the Divine nature of the Son of God was blended with the fallen human nature of the sons of Adam after the fall and after 4000 years of degeneracy according to the great law of heredity. This we believe is the mystery of the incarnation. DA 21. While He (Christ) took our fallen nature, we believe in harmony with what is written that there is in Him no evil propensity to sin, but that he was tempted from without, not from within (John 14:30; James 1:14.), in all points as we are, yet without sin. He could have yielded to temptation, but He did not, thus becoming both our Saviour and Advocate. We may overcome through Him even as he overcame. Christ was, is, and always will be, God. 1 John 5:20; Hebrews 13:8; 2:13-18; 7:16, 26, 27; Romans 1:13; 8:3; Hebrews 2:9; 1SM 253; 5T 699. This subject should not be discussed further as it is the “mystery of all mysteries” (6BC 1082) and all our teaching should be based on a “thus saith the Lord”, and not on individual opinions.”

We re-endorse the intent of this resolution, which is to briefly cover a deep and complex mystery which is to be appreciated in making a personal experience (John 1:14; 7BC 904; GC 251). We re-emphasise that there were no evil propensities or tendencies to sin in Christ’s human nature, in harmony with the following statements from the Spirit of Prophecy:

“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….

He [Christ] could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” The SDA Bible Commentary (EGW Comments), vol. 5, p. 1128.

“He [Christ] was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, pp. 508, 509.

“He [Christ] was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.” The SDA Bible Commentary (EGW Comments), vol. 7, p. 925.

“The prince of darkness found nothing in Him; not a single thought or feeling responded to temptation.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 422

“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, he sought to regain for man that which, by disobedience, Adam had lost for himself and for the world.” —The Review and Herald, December 15, 1896.

Christ partook of “our sinful nature” (ST July 30, 1902; MM 180), and was thus encompassed with infirmities, weakness and liabilities (2T 202, 508, 509; DA 49; 1SM 253; 3SM 131, 132; 4BC 1147:4), but He had no evil propensities or evil tendencies in His human nature. Evil tendencies or evil propensities are evil leanings, inclinations, and bias’. These reside in our minds not in our physical flesh (AH 127, 128). Christ had none of these in His mind or flesh (human nature). The work of conversion and sanctification is the process which God uses to remove these evil propensities from our nature. We believe that this is in harmony with the following statements from the Spirit of Prophecy which clarify this question:

“Jesus Christ is our example in all things. He began life, passed through its experiences, and ended its record, with a sanctified human will. He was tempted in all points like as we are, and yet because he kept his will surrendered and sanctified, he never bent in the slightest degree toward the doing of evil, or toward manifesting rebellion against God…. Those who have a sanctified will, that is in unison with the will of Christ, will day by day have their wills bound to the will of Christ, which will act in blessing others, and react upon themselves with divine power.” ST October, 29, 1894.

“Christ’s perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ. As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties. He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh. He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. He breathed the very air man must breathe. He trod our earth as man. He had reason, conscience, memory, will, and affections of the human soul which was united with His divine nature.” 16MR 181.

“The Lord Jesus, through sacrificing His life upon the cross, purposed by the agency of the Holy Spirit to bring man to see his position as a sinner and surrender his will to God’s will. He will sanctify every soul that will receive the gracious gift, and [will] give him power to become a son of God. He takes away the destructive tendencies of the sinful nature and brings the human agency into His service.” 18MR 208.2.

“The old nature, born of blood and the will of the flesh, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The old ways, the hereditary tendencies, the former habits, must be given up: for grace is not inherited…. A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” Maranatha, 237. (See also 6BC 1101.)

“The word of God destroys the natural, earthly nature and imparts a new life in Christ Jesus.” DA 391

“Genuine conversion is needed, not once in years, but daily. This conversion brings man into a new relation with God. Old things, his natural passions and hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, pass away, and he is renewed and sanctified. But this work must be continual: for as long as Satan exists, he will make an effort to carry on his work. He who strives to serve God will encounter a strong undercurrent of wrong. His heart needs to be barricaded by constant watchfulness and prayer,…. Divine grace must be received daily, or no man will stay converted….” Our High Calling, 215.

“All must come under the training of Jesus. When they fall upon Christ, their own hereditary and cultivated tendencies are taken away as hindrances to their being partakers of the divine nature. When self dies, Christ lives in the human agent; the man abides in Christ, and Christ lives in him.” Gospel Herald, April 23, 1902.

“Bad dispositions, hereditary tendencies, are opposed to the gospel of Christ.” 1 MR 318.

“Every one who by faith obeys God’s commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.” ST, July 23, 1902. (See also 6BC 1118)

———————————————

1. These three categories taken from J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1999), pp. 272-274.
2. However way it was used in the past, according to today’s definition, propensity is synonymous with words like “leaning” and “inclination,” however, whether good or evil, it is often intense and stronger. – Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.m-w.com.
3. Intrinsic: “originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part” – Ibid.
4. Innate: “existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth” – Ibid.
5. Here, all three words, vicariously, means to be imputed with something, resulting in one having “experienced or realized through imaginative or sympathetic participation in the experience of another” – Ibid.
6. J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings, p. 273.
7. For an excellent in-depth historical survey of Adventist thought on the human nature of Christ, please see J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings.
8. See also ST May 11, 1904.
9. See also ST July 9, 1902; December 1, 1914
10. Seventh-day Adventists Believe (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988), p. 57.
11. To say that Christ did not have sinful flesh is one thing, but to say that even WE do not have sinful flesh is another, and is truly outrageous. Not only is it totally unbiblical, but it is also totally foreign to each of our own individual experiences in fighting against sin.
12. The phrase, “The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God,” simply means that the flesh by itself, all alone, cannot do the actual act of sin. It only tempts against the mind, and when the mind responds to it, when it starts to work with the flesh, then the actual sin is brought to fruition. See James 1:14, 15.
13. To forever settle the issue on what this phrase really says, the original Greek reads: “en homoiomati sarkos hamartias” which, as expected, translates literally as, “in (the) likeness of sinful flesh.” Any translation that does not have the phrase “sinful flesh” must be ignored (the NIV, for example, has the phrase “sinful man,” which is truly doing an injustice to the Greek), since the doctrine of Christ overcoming in sinful flesh is truly vital in the Christian’s goal of full sanctification and perfection.
14. See Apostle Paul’s teaching of sinful flesh in other books, such as Galatians 5 (second half) and Ephesians 2 (beginning).
15. In fact, the doctrine of “sinful flesh” is not limited to apostles Paul and John. The concept of our flesh being sinful was also taught by the apostles Peter and James. See, respectively, 1Pet. 2:11; 2Pet. 2:10, 18 and James 4:1.
16. J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings, pp. 107-115.
17. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 2, p. 37.
18. Ibid.
19. Key christological phrases from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy had been omitted, such as “sinful flesh” and “tempted from without and from within.”
20. First in 1987, second in 1995, and third in 1999. See Luke 22:34.