Most parents are probably answering “yes” without any hesitation. If we conclude that a two-year old sins, must we also conclude that Jesus sinned as a two-year old?
If Jesus did sin as a two-year-old, how can He be the spotless Lamb? One might answer that this rebellion, despite being sin, isn’t counted as sin because the child has not reached the “age of accountability”. But that leaves the implausible question, “At what age did Jesus stop rebelling against His earthly and heavenly parents?”
If Jesus didn’t sin as a two-year-old, how did He accomplish what no other two-year old has ever accomplished?
If we insist that Jesus’ power to obey came from His reliance on the Father and not from any inherent power of His own divinity while incarnate, then we must conclude that a two-year old has reached the age of accountability. If at 2 years old Jesus had the human knowledge and ability to surrender His will to His Father’s will, then every two-year old should have that same ability, or else Jesus had some advantage that we do not posses. If a two-year old has the ability to surrender their will to God, wouldn’t that be the age to start baptism? Since I haven’t seen any Seventh-day Adventist churches baptizing toddlers (or any other churches that believe baptism should occur after a person can reasonably express their choice to accept God), I feel safe concluding that no one actually believes that a person has reached the age of accountability by the age of two.
Alternatively, we could conclude that Jesus was not really, fully man. But in that case we have to conclude that Scripture isn’t true. And if God (Jesus) is a liar, then He is not the sinless, spotless Lamb. This creates even more problems than it could possibly solve.
All of these logical inconsistencies are solved if one realizes that Jesus was not just like every human ever born. He had the unfallen human nature of Adam, untainted by sin. We are born with a fallen nature (Ps 51:5-6), corrupted by sin from the day that we are conceived. Furthermore Christ possessed a fully Divine nature in union with His fully (unfallen) human nature. Christ is substantially different from us (yet at the same time He has shared fully in our struggles and sorrows).
We should also examine why SDA doctrine might want a Jesus with a sinful nature. Adventism falsely teaches, based on the idea that Satan accused God of having an unfair Law that no one is able to keep, that Christ needed to prove that man could keep God’s Law. However, there is no Scriptural record of Satan making this accusation against God. Neither is there any indication that God must prove to anyone that Satan is a liar. This false teaching is at the foundation of the SDA world-view and influences how SDAs must view Jesus.
The Bible does talk about the obedience of Christ, particularly in Romans 5 where Christ’s obedience is contrasted with Adam’s disobedience. One thing that this comparison brings out is Christ’s role as the “second Adam”. The first Adam sinned and brought sin and death to the human race. The second Adam (Christ) obeyed and brought reconciliation and life to the human race. †
- Our Journey Out of Adventism - July 27, 2023
- 30. Adventism’s New Earth - July 27, 2023
- 29. The Adventist Millennium - July 20, 2023
Thanks, Rick. I can’t imagine God rolling the dice by giving Christ our evil nature and expecting the outcome to be any different than the life of any fallen human being. The odds would not be in His favor. God knows what He is doing. Furthermore, this illustrates that while Christ is our ideal role model, His perfect life cannot be expected to be reproduced in humans who are born with the nature of sin in their entire being. If this was necessary for salvation we would have been given an unfallen nature also, but that would have been impossible, as sin destroyed that condition. We are not, nor can we become gods. We can become brothers and sisters of Christ tho through the merciful gift of Him alone, adopted, not born as twins. He is our Savior, not us.
Another thought that helps me remember who I am and who God is: “Are we sinners because we commit sinful acts or do we commit sinful acts because we are sinners?” I’ve asked many SDAs this question and have found no one who understood what it means. A thoughtful answer could help us not focus on the sinful acts of other “sinners” especially persons who are not Christians. There is no us and them. We are all sinners. More importantly it shows that Christ could not have had a sinful nature because He would have been found “in sin” prior to birth and in need of a savior just as we are as you showed by Ps 51:5,6. The founding SDAs adopted a world view that revolves around keeping the written commandments (only the 10 and a few of the other ceremonials, then the evolved view of sinful acts developed by EG White.) It has colored their theology, resulting in highly speculative views regarding prophecy yet to be fulfilled and the very means of salvation. That is, it colors their view of themselves, their Christian walk, and what Christ actually accomplished for us. I suggest we need to understand sin before we can understand anything else about ourselves or God.