The flaw in the mathematical argument is that it is assumed that Jesus' "external" temptations were independent of his internal ones, or of any hereditary influence. The hereditary aspects could serve as a catalyst where, without the hereditary inclinations, the strength of the temptation could be negligible, but with them they become incredibly strong. So Jesus' temptations are more than 100 times as strong as anyone else's because of the combination of the particular external temptations He had in combination with the hereditary inclinations He had.

Elle, the way the subject was present in the 1890's was like this:

a)We have hereditary inclinations (i.e. sinful flesh)
b)Christ came in sinful flesh and overcame by faith, serving as our example and preparing the way for us to do likewise.

This theology was taught by Jones, Waggoner, Prescott and others, as well as endorsed by Ellen White (and taught by her as well, but I'll mention this parenthetically, as this is a point under dispute, whereas the non-parenthetical portion would be accepted by all, I'm pretty sure.)

For example, Ellen White endorsed the following sermon (this is the first part of the sermon, maybe the first third or fourth):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.""And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The Revised Version says, "The Word became flesh." The theme of redemption will be the science and the song of the eternal ages, and well may it occupy our minds during our short stay here. There is no portion of this great theme that makes such a demand upon our minds in order to appreciate it in any degree, as the
subject we shall study to-night,—"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." Through Him all things became; now He Himself became. He who had all glory with the Father, now lays aside His glory and becomes flesh. He lays aside His divine mode of existence, and takes
the human mode of existence, and God becomes manifest in the flesh. This truth is the very foundation of all truth.

A HELPFUL TRUTH

And Jesus Christ becoming flesh. God being manifest in the flesh, is one of the most helpful truths, one of the most instructive truths, the truth above all truths, which humanity ought to rejoice in. I desire this evening to study this question for our personal, present benefit. Let us command our minds to the utmost, because to comprehend that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, demands all our mental powers. Let us consider, first, what kind of flesh; for this is the very foundation of this question as it relates to us personally. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might bea merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in chat He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." Heb. 2:14-18. That through death, being made subject to death, taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He might, by His dying, destroy him that had the power of death. "Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." The margin says, "He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold;" and one version reads, "He helps not angels." We see the reason from the next verse:"Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God." "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. 3:16. Now verily, He helps the seed of Abraham by Himself becoming the seed of Abraham. God, sending His own

Adam was the representative of the family; therefore his sin was
a representative sin. When Jesus Christ came, He came to take the
place in which Adam had failed. "And so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Cor. 14:45. The second Adam is the man Christ Jesus, and He came down to unite the human family with the divine family. God is spoken of as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, came Himself to this part of the family, that He might win it back again, that there might be a —

REUNITED FAMILY IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

He came and took the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh.

Adam failed in his place, and by the offence of one many were made sinners. Jesus Christ gave Himself, not only for us, but to us, uniting Himself to the family, in order that He might take the place of the first Adam, and as head of the family win back what was lost by the first Adam. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is a representative righteousness, just as the sin of Adam was a representative sin, and Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, gathered to Himself the whole family.

But since the first Adam took his place, there has been a change, and humanity is sinful humanity. The power of righteousness has been lost. To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. He became, not a man, but He became flesh; He became human, and gathered all humanity unto Himself, embraced it in His own infinite mind, and stood as the representative of the whole human family.

Adam was tempted at the very first on the question of appetite. Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrous glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, l4by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:11. He has come into the family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. Jesus Christ made the connection between God and man, that the divine spirit might rest upon humanity. He made the way for humanity...

Now the interesting thing about the endorsement is that Ellen White saw Prescott's sermon in terms of obedience, even though he was actually speaking of Christ's taking our flesh.

The temptation is not more difficult, it's you who have less moral power to resist it - two different things. Besides, as I said in the past, the power of a temptation depends on a combination of factors.
A sinful tendency already presupposes a sinful desire. You are already bent on a sinful direction. Even if you don't accomplish the act, you will think, "I won't do that but I would like to," and so you have already sinned. Like my tendency for romantic fiction (soap operas). Out of a sense of Christian duty, I many times resisted the temptation to watch soap operas, but I had the desire to watch them.

"But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:14).

The word "desire" here is from the Greek epithumea, which is translated as "covetousness" in Rom. 7:7.

"It is true that Christ at one time said of himself, 'The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.' John 14:30. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But he could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. Jesus did not consent to sin. Not even by a thought could he be brought to the power of Satan's temptations." {GCB, February 25, 1895 par. 6}

The tenth commandment strikes at the very root of all sins, prohibiting the selfish desire, from which springs the sinful act. {PP 309.5}


How are pre-natal (non-genetical, as you call them, as opposed to "genetical") tendencies transmitted? I think all tendencies are transmitted in the same way. And if the former can be removed from the life, so can the latter.
I found Elle's explanation very interesting.


It's not a semantic difference. There seems to be more than one factor in the sinful nature. For instance, EGW says about the will:

The unaided human will has no real power to resist and overcome evil. The defenses of the soul are broken down. Man has no barrier against sin. When once the restraints of God's word and His Spirit are rejected, we know not to what depths one may sink. MH 428

She says about Christ:

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. {ST, October 29, 1894 par. 7}

We don't begin life with a sanctified human will; our will is sanctified only at the new birth. However, maybe Christ's "unaided human will," like ours (and differently from that of Adam), had "no real power to resist and overcome evil." Maybe this was the case.

Tom, I respect your opinion and don't agree with your emphasis of "b)". To me, I strongly am incline to believe that Jesus was very different from us from birth and plus with what scripture says about he was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. Plus Jesus was fully God.

I agree with Arnold when he says none of us have had half of the genetic makeup come from the Holy Spirit. The mystery of his incarnation is not reveal to us, but we do know the basic and He was different from us from Birth.


Also I like the way Rosangela presents it. To me it seems to be in harmony with scripture and SOP. And, who am I to say anything; I've just started trying to sort these up.

This was the emphasis of Ellen White, W. W. Prescott, Jones, Waggoner, and the church as a whole for 100 years. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that there was even any discussion regarding this, save the Holy Flesh controversy.

Regarding Christ being different from at birth, yes, all the above, and I also, agree with this. He was divine, and He had a sinless nature. As the Spirit of Prophecy puts it, Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature. So this makes Him different than us from birth. However, the human nature He took was perfectly identical with our own.





This is exactly what I see happening here. Christ is given a fictitious human nature with special powers, powers we do not have, which cannot help but hurt our experience. Why? Because it causes, in our minds, a division between us and Christ.

The emphasis of the 1888 messengers was on a Savior who was "touched with our feelings." Heb. 4 (end of chapter) through Heb. 5 (beginning of chapter) present a Savior who is able to have compassion upon His fellow and give them help in time of need, because He passed through the same difficulties. If we do not grasp this, we won't perceive His compassion and won't ask for His help (at least, not as Paul had in mind in Hebrews).

Also the idea that temptations from within, which come to us through heredity (genetically), can be removed is, IMO, extremely dangerous.

This is not true at all. Temptation is not different for sinless and sinful beings. Human beings, whether sinless or sinful, are always tempted in three key areas, and if your lack of moral power to resist it has any bearing at all on its strength, other factors must equally be taken into account.
Normally a cold can of beer doesn't constitute a strong temptation to me at all. However, let's say it's a strong temptation for an alcoholic. Now let's suppose I'm five days without drinking any liquid in a desert under the scorching sun. How tempting will a cold can of beer be to me? Can you imagine? Will you say my temptation is weaker than the temptation of the alcoholic? Besides, let's say I refuse to drink, but the temptation persists for a long time, growing stronger at each moment. How is this different from the case of the alcoholic who hasn't even felt one tenth of the strength of the temptation because he yielded immediately to it?

I think you must have missed my post just above Elle's.


The opposite view is dangerous. It's always "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" without "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

What do you think difficult means? How could it possibly mean anything different than "more difficult to resist?" If a person had less moral power to resist it (to go with your assumption here), wouldn't that make temptation more difficult to resist?



One of which is having a sinful nature.



Are you talking about hereditary inclinations?



"You" are not bent. You have a nature which is bent. That nature is a nature which, apart from divine assistance, would lead us to sin. Christ took the same sinful nature we have, and overcame by relying upon divine help. Consenting to sin, or not laying hold of divine aid, would lead to becoming bent.



This sounds like confusing temptation with sin.



This sounds like a cultivated tendency, not a hereditary inclination.



Are you interpreting this as a cultivated or inherited tendency?



This is because Christ never yielded to temptation, not because His assumed sinful nature was different than ours.



Exactly! "Some sinful desire is cherished." Christ never "cherished" any such thing.



Again, Jesus did not "consent" to sin. This isn't saying that He wasn't tempted by sinful desires, but that He didn't cherish them, nor consent to sin.



I suppose through a combination of means; chemical dependencies could arise if the mother is using drugs or alcohol; the mind can be influenced by different noises; the nervous system impacted if the mother experiences fear or different emotions.



The tendency transmitted by a mother taking drugs the same as tendencies passed by the genes and chromosomes? This seems extremely unlikely.



It seems to me the genetic tendencies would be something you would always have, since your genes don't change. For example, you could have perfect pitch, and a tendency to be musical, but you could resist these tendencies and never develop musically. But you'd always have perfect pitch.



This was just as true of Christ's human will as ours.



Christ also depended upon God's word and the Holy Spirit.



She's not saying here that we don't begin life with a sanctified will. She said that Christ did, and is our example in all things.



Certainly this was the case!

Christ overcame in the same manner as we must; He was our example in all things, including having to depend upon the Holy Spirit and God's word.


Back to the Holy Flesh controversy. The following is accurate, isn't it?

Holy Flesh

a.Christ came in the nature of Adam before the fall.
b.He would have been sinful otherwise.
c.We need to be like Christ to be a part of the 144,000.
d.Therefore we need to be rid of our sinful nature.

You:

a.Christ came with a nature which did not tempt Him from within.
b.He would have been sinful otherwise.
c.We need to be like Christ to be a part of the 144,000.
d.Therefore we need to be rid of temptations from within.

But it is true! This was a strong emphasis of the 1888 Messengers. Hebrews tells us that as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. He is not ashamed to call us brethren, because He descended to take our nature, degraded and defiled by sin. Having done so, He is able to have compassion upon us, because He knows by experience our difficulties.

Ellen White makes this same argument as well. He accepted the working of the great law of heredity, the results of which is shown in His ancestors, in order to share in our sorrow. This is the same idea.

To the extent that we make Christ's human nature different than ours, we destroy our ability to receive the comfort Christ is longing to give us.



Sure it is. Sinless beings cannot be tempted from within, for one thing.



It's different because you have no specific temptation to drink beer, but only to drink liquid, any liquid. Whereas an alcoholic has a temptation to partake of alcohol.



She doesn't post as much as you do, so hers grabbed my attention.



You're asserting that it's dangerous to think that our sinful nature will continue to tempt us throughout our lifetime. Why do you think this is dangerous?



??? If this "body of death" no longer tempts us, why would we need deliverance? This is arguing against your view. It's always "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" because we *need* the deliverance which He gives.

Tom, what a lame argument! What does this have to do with the strength of the temptation? It's clear that my temptation would have been much stronger than that of an alcoholic in the example given.


Because you think that defeat is victory, when it's not. I lived a great part of my Christian life thinking that victory over a sinful thing was griting my teeth and trying to abstain from doing it, when I desperately wanted to do it. But Jesus said the sinful desire is already sin. "But I say to you that everyone whose eyes are turned on a woman with desire has had connection with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28, BBE).


In Romans 7 Paul is speaking of his pre-conversion experience, when he needed deliverance from sin. Romans 8 speaks about the deliverance he found in Christ.

The Bible says that God does not let us be tempted beyond our strength. If the power of resistance of the person defined the degree of difficulty of a temptation, all temptations would be equally difficult.


Which can perfectly be compensated by another factor.


I’m talking about any inclination.


You can’t separate your nature from yourself. If your nature has a bent, you have a bent. And when your nature is transformed and renewed, you are transformed and renewed.

“thus the carnal nature is transformed, renewed in holiness after the image of Christ's righteousness and true holiness.” {PH002 25.2}

When Christ abides in the heart, the whole nature is transformed. Everything that defileth is banished from the soul's temple. {ST, January 13, 1888 par. 11}


She couldn’t have said, “Some sinful desire is had,” could she? The word “cherish” merely expresses the occurrence of the sinful desire. Take a look at this statement again:

"The tenth commandment strikes at the very root of all sins, prohibiting the selfish desire, from which springs the sinful act." {PP 309.5}


What does Ellen White mean by the following comment?

“The tendencies, which have been biased in a wrong direction, are turned in a right direction.” {PH028 8.2}


Are you affirming that we begin life with a sanctified will?



Again the same point. Please demonstrate that “the nature of Adam before the fall” = “no temptations from within.”
I don't remember having used c. and d. as arguments. I'm not sure about these statements.