ART(3)1 / AA10 pp 17-20 Letter to George Vandeman It is with sadness that I pen this ciples; the other unites on the doc- sinned, but did not do so,—we can letter. I have admired you for years: trine of cronyism: “Whatever my su- be saved! He died to live our life the empathy you so often manifested periors advocate, that is what I will and be our example, and provide in your demeanor and voice, and the teach.” us with grace to overcome, resist evangelistic fervor with which you It is rather easy to detect this sin, and obey God’s command- worked. pattern, because those defending the ments—just as He did while on You were the one who, when in corporate error use logic to defend earth. 1955 as I was completing the Bach- their position. They may interweave That is the correct view. elor of Divinity degree and seven some Scripture into it—which may “For verily He took not on Him years of college, graduate, and post- seem to loosely accord with it,—but the nature of angels; but He took on graduate school, counseled me to go they do not take the whole teachings Him the seed of Abraham.”—He- into the ministry instead of going on of the whole Word. They take a seg- brews 2:16. for a Ph.D. and becoming a Bible ment of an idea, and blow it up into Hebrews 2:16 declares that teacher in one of our colleges. I took a full-fledged doctrine, while ignor- Christ did not take the nature of your advice, and that summer en- ing the great majority of Scriptural Abraham’s ancestor, Adam, but the tered the ministry in California. statements on the subject. This is the nature of Abraham’s descendants! I have here before me your letter method used to find “Sunday sacred- Surely, then, how can anyone say that in defense of a Martin Webber article ness” in the Bible. This is how men Christ took the nature of Adam be- in the It Is Written monthly, Chan- defend the incorrect view of the na- fore his fall? nels, advocating the erroneous view ture of Christ. “Wherefore in all things it be- of the nature of Christ. When forced to defend their po- hoved Him to be made like unto His Because his article was sent to sition more fully, they will quote fal- brethren, that He might be a merci- all your Channels readers, and be- lible, uninspired men: the councils, ful and faithful High Priest in things cause you wrote a form letter to ev- the creeds, the popes, the saints, or pertaining to God, to make reconcili- ery one protesting the article (en- influential theologians. ation for the sins of the people. closed), I will let others read my re- “For in that He Himself hath suf- Those unacquainted with the is- ply to your theological position, fered being tempted, He is able to sues here may wonder why it mat- I was deeply saddened as I read succour them that are tempted.”— ters what nature Christ had. Yet as it. I had thought you to be a staunch Hebrews 2:17-18. both you and I know, it is a crucial supporter of our Bible/Spirit of Unless Christ was “made like matter. For Christology prefaces Prophecy historic beliefs. It comes as unto His brethren,” He could not be soteriology: The nature of Christ a shock to learn that you have been lays the foundation for the way we our High Priest. Unless He Himself swayed, as have so many other of our are saved or lost. was able to be tempted as we are, He leaders and workers, by fellow asso- could not give us overcoming help Very briefly, here are the issues: ciates. when we are tempted. That is what I have repeatedly observed that, The Bible/Spirit of Prophecy we learn in Hebrews 2:17-18. in our denomination, doctrinal be- truth is that Christ took our hu- In contrast, the erroneous posi- liefs among workers are determined man nature. That means He was tion is that Christ had the nature of more by friendships, and cronyism, able to be fully tempted as we are, Adam before he sinned in the Gar- than by the study of God’s Word. and was fully tempted as we are. den of Eden. This is called the un- A higher-echelon worker notes Yet He never yielded; He never once fallen nature of Christ view. that a subordinate is standing for a sinned. This is the teaching that Christ certain position. In a few friendly He took not the nature of Adam could not have had our fallen nature, words he sets him straight. “Didn’t before his fall, but the nature of for then He could not have resisted you know that . ?” Perhaps he men- Adam’s fallen descendants. temptation! According to this error, tions it with a laugh, but the point is This concept is called the fallen Christ did not, by His life and death, made: Shape up, or you may ship off nature of Christ. It might better be give us empowering grace to resist down the road erelong. called the post-Adamic nature of sin and obey the laws of God. In every century of church his- Christ. Though Christ had a nature Thus, the erroneous view com- tory it has been the same. Errors like ours—a fallen nature,—He never pletely changes the way we are saved! creep into the church, and divisions actually fell! He never sinned. Instead of receiving forgiveness and Because Christ could have DATE OF PUBLICATION: APRIL 1994 OF PUBLICATION: DATE occur. One side stands on Bible prin- empowering grace, the error provides 2 Waymarks only forgiveness. But the truth is that Christ Elder Vandeman, in your letter The unfallen nature position is chose to resist sin and successfully to inquiring listeners, (paragraph 3) closely tied to the error of original did it—and He did it in the same you write that Christ only had “a sin, which the licentious Catholic humanity that you and I have. form similar (not identical) to sinful bishop, Augustine, invented in order That is a promise! In Christ— flesh. In other words, He had a body to explain how he, so passionately you and I can have victory also! like ours, but He did not have the locked in cherished sin, was certain Trusting, moment by moment in sinful nature we have. His nature was that he was going to heaven. Christ, you and I can also resist holy, harmless, and undefiled.” According to this false collection temptation and obey the law of But the correct position would be of errors, mankind does not have to God. this: Christ did indeed have a body obey the laws of God; indeed, God The controverted issue is about like ours, but in that body He did not does not enable him by grace to do the nature of Christ—whether or not choose to commit sin. He had our it, and does not necessarily want him He actually took our human nature. body, but He did not indulge in our to try to do it. This is the heart of, All agree there is no controversy sins. All the decisions of His life were what is called, the New Theology. about the actions of Christ—whether holy, harmless, and undefiled. So, on one side, we have the or not He ever sinned. (Paragraph 4) This paragraph fallen nature position which we The controverted issue is is reasoning based on your premise clearly find in the Bible and Spirit of whether or not you and I can resist in paragraph 3. But, as we have Prophecy: Christ was made in all temptation and sin. There is no con- noted, that premise is incorrect. points like us. He was tempted in all troversy about whether Christ was (Paragraph 5) You here get to the points like as we. But He never sinless. heart of the matter: You state that sinned. Because He was fully God So the fundamental question in babies sin, and Jesus never did; and fully man, His death on the cross the nature of Christ—is whether He therefore He could not have had our could provide the basis for our atone- took OUR nature (and thus was nature. The implication is obvious: ment. We are now to come to Him, truly tempted like us, and truly You are saying that, if Christ really find forgiveness for the past, and resisted sin as we may do); or did had our nature, He could not have henceforth live in Him. By faith in His He take a nature NOT OURS— resisted sin. THIS is the fundamen- enabling grace, we are to live His life. Adam’s pre-fall nature—which tal crux of the erroneous view of the We are to live “in Christ.” We, adopted could not really be tempted or re- nature of Christ: The theory is that sons and daughters of God through sist sin, as we in our daily struggles He could not have had our nature, Him, are to obey the Father as He, must do. because everyone with our nature Christ the Son, obeyed the Father. The obvious outworking of the cannot, in this life, resist sin; we are However, there is one point about erroneous view is that, if Christ could locked into it, by virtue of original the nature of Christ teaching, which not, and did not have to, resist sin,— sin.