You asked "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?" So I explained the difference. You weren't tempted like the alcoholic was tempted.



The scenario should be you and the alcoholic are both in the dessert for five days with the opportunity to drink a glass of beer to quench your thirst, and the question should be who is the temptation more difficult for.



No, you think temptation is sin, when it's not.



Temptation is not sin. Again, you'll never be free if you think this. That is, if anytime you sense a temptation coming from within, you believe this to be evidence that your sinning, then you'll never find peace. This is part of our sinful flesh, which doesn't change until translation.

Once again, your view here seems just like the Holy Flesh. Only the terminology is different (and the fanatical experience to obtain the sinless nature). But the believe that we need a sinless nature is there. But this is not to be.

What do you think the defining characteristic of a sinful nature is?



Whether Paul is speaking of his pre or post-conversion experience is irrelevant to the point. Paul receives victory over the body of death by faith, not by having his sinful nature irradicated.

Wasn't I pointing out that having a sinful nature makes temptations more difficult? What does this have to do with that?



I don't know what you mean by this, but it still remains that having a sinful nature is a factor on which the power of a temptation is dependent upon.



It's important that these be distinguished. We're not held accountable for hereditary tendencies, in terms of there having been transmitted to us; only for resisting them.



You can take hold of a sinless nature, the divine nature, and be ruled by that nature instead of the other one.



Your sinful nature isn't.



Sure. Of course, the way you put it is incorrect grammatically, but she could have communicated the thought of the existence of a sinful desire as opposed to the cherishing of it.

What would be contrary to cherishing a sinful desire? Wouldn't it be refusing to cherish it? So we can say that Christ never cherished a sinful desire, that He always refused to do so. But that doesn't imply that His assumed sinful nature did not tempt Him. Indeed, how could it not? You'd have to either take the position that His assumed sinful nature was not like ours (sinless, I guess) or that one receives no temptations by virtue of having a sinful nature.



This doesn't say anything about cherishing a sinful desire. You can't conclude that "cherish" means existence by quoting some other statement which doesn't mention "cherish" at all! That's not a logically sound argument.

Anyway, to the statement. The statement is clearly prohibiting a desire over which one has control, right? So if having this particular sinful desire is bad of itself, how could it be something which is generated simply by having a sinful nature? (since we have no control over having a sinful nature).



I don't see how this question relates to my point. You'd lose your perfect pitch?

I think she means you used to have certain inclinations, but now you have different ones.



No. I'm affirming she didn't say in what you quoted that we don't begin life with a sanctified will. I pointed this out because you quoted her, and then affirmed "We don't begin life with a sanctified human will," which gives the impression that you were doing so because of her statement. In case that was the case, I was pointing out there her statement didn't say that.



What same point?



Why? Are you saying that Adam, before the fall, had temptations from within?



I thought you said being tempted from within is a sin. Do you think the 144,000 will be sinning?

Even so, it would be more difficult for me, of course. The alcoholic yields immediately. I, in the example given, refuse to drink, although my life is virtually depending on my drinking something, and the temptation persists for a long time, growing stronger at each moment. So, I feel all the weight of the temptation; he doesn't.


The key point in the temptation is if you find the suggestion pleasing or repugnant.


But I am free. Occasionally my attention is called to a particular sinful tendency when I notice that I find some kind of sinful suggestion pleasing. When I surrender that to the Lord, He removes it from my life. It’s not easy, of course. It’s like cutting off a limb or plucking an eye, for these things are part of me, and it is painful to be separated from them, but the Lord has been faithful in working in me both to will and to do, according to His good pleasure.

"’And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.’ Here Christ would teach us that the character-building needs close and careful attention. ... Those who have hereditary tendencies to evil ... should see that the offending members are cut away. Painful as this work may be of separating the evil from our character, it must be done. ... [Sinful tendencies] must be taken out of the life." {ST, May 20, 1897 par. 8-10}


Not the sinful nature erradicated, but the sinful tendencies removed.

R: 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.
T: Wasn't I pointing out that having a sinful nature makes temptations more difficult? What does this have to do with that?[/quote]
That if you have a sinful nature, and consequently your power of resistance is less, your temptations must be easier, not more difficult. And what defines the degree of difficulty of a temptation is not your power of resistance (otherwise all temptations would be equally difficult), but the complexity of factors involved in that particular temptation.


I mean that if a temptation is dependent on several factors, an easier factor can be compensated by (an)other factor(s) more difficult, and which may be weightier. For instance, in the example given, the factor that a can of beer doesn’t constitute a strong temptation to me is compensated and greatly surpassed by other factors, like the fact that I am in a hot desert for several days without water, and so I’m thirsty, my life is at risk, and the temptation is unrelenting.


Then Ellen White must be wrong. Again the quotes:

“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 can only be referring to our sinful nature, the only one which needs a transformation]


Having a sinful desire comes before cherishing it. And Ellen White in this quote is saying that the tenth commandment prohibits having the selfish desire.
A desire is different from merely having your attention called to something. When you have a desire, you cherish it at that moment. You can choose not to continue cherishing it, but you have already cherished it for one moment.


That’s the problem with the view you hold. You don’t believe God can remove a particular sinful desire from your life.


She means that wrongly biased tendencies are turned in a right direction. Opposite tendencies are mutually exclusive. You can’t have a tendency for honesty and for dishonesty at the same time. So, the tendency for dishonesty is turned in the right direction, and after that you have a tendency for honesty.


No, I’m saying that “no temptations from within” was just one of the factors involved in Adam’s sinless nature, not its totality. So, you can’t say
Sinless nature = no temptations from within
Sinful nature = temptations from within


It’s simply something I had never thought about. But yes, they seem to be correct.

The point is that having a sinful nature makes a temptation more difficult than not having one. For example, if a person has a predisposition towards alcohol, alcohol is a more difficult temptation than if he doesn't.



It's not "compensated" by this; it simply constitutes a different temptation. The point isn't that Christ overcame temptations which were as hard, or even harder than ours, but that He overcame our temptations (i.e., the same ones we face). This point was made by Adventists for decades.

For example, from E. J. Hibbard:



The world that Christ overcame was in His flesh. That Christ's victory is something which directly impacts us. He didn't simply overcome temptations that according to some mathematical formula were >= ours, but overcame the temptations that we have to deal with.

From Prescott:



Christ, taking sinful flesh, made the way for humanity.



You're confusing issues here. "Sinful nature" is the same thing as "sinful flesh." Sinful flesh is not renewed by crucified.

Ellen White never spoke of Christ's taking our "carnal nature," so for you to bring in quotes dealing with this is changing horses in midstream.



If one's sinful nature is transformed and renewed, then when was Christ's?



Do you not think that covetousness involves an act of the will? Given it does, it would follow that the desire spoken of here is not one which arises from our flesh, or sinful nature, since these are not desires we have any control over. Self must be crucified.



No, this is wrong. This is confusing temptation with sin. We can have desires because of external or internal factors. The sin comes in cherishing the desire, which Ellen White clarifies in saying that "some sinful desire is cherished."

Actually, to speak of "having a desire" is not very precise, as "have" can mean different things. "Cherish" is clearer.

To express the point in a clearer way, the existence of a desire is not necessarily sin. It might be, but it isn't necessarily so. For example, as long as we have this sinful flesh, we will have a hard-wired desire to put self first. Self must be crucified. There will never come a time, this side of heaven, where our sinful flesh will be in alignment with the things of heaven



If she says "some sinful desire is cherished" then there was a time when it was there and not cherished.



1.Some temptations/desires come from having sinful flesh/nature.
2.As long as we have this flesh/nature, we will have these temptations/desires (e.g. putting self first).
3.God gives us victory by giving us the power to overcome the temptations/desires.
4.God has not promised to remove every temptation/desire, but to give us victory over them.
5.For example, self will have to be crucified, until heaven comes.
6.When heaven comes, then our battles will be over. Until then, there will be a batter against self.



This is saying the same thing I said in different words. You used to have one tendency (dishonesty), but now you have another (honesty).



Temptations from within seems to be the factor of sinful flesh/nature you are having difficulties with. At any rate, I don't understand why you made this request. How does it fit into this?

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.



Ok, I'm glad I wasn't misrepresenting your thought. One can see it follows the same logical progression as the Holy Flesh people had.

Those quotes describe that which tempts us from within, and which Jesus did not have.

That's true. Those quotes do not deal with the temptations from within which Christ did have, only with ones He did not, as Christ had no evil in His heart, nor an unregenerate heart.

However, Christ did have sinful flesh! (and the temptations inherent in having that).

I spend an inordinate amount of time talking to people about Christ's human nature, trying to help them see its moral/spiritual implications and importance. That's why we are on this merry-go-round again. But it doesn't always work.


You and I are mostly agreed on this topic. I think you do a fine job of defending the view, so I feel no great urge to hop in.

But in my latest sermons on Steps to Christ, I dwell on this topic quite a bit, hitting it from various angles. I'll upload/post them one of these days.

The idea that "God will get us if we don't obey so we better get on the ball" is pernicious.

This is relative. As I said, a temptation is a combination of factors. Let’s say the alcoholic is sober and he sees a can of beer. Let’s say he feels the impulse to drink, but when he reaches for the can, someone with a gun says to him, “If you touch that can I’ll shoot you.” How strong will be the temptation to drink of it?

Now let’s invert things. Someone who doesn’t have a propensity to drink sees a can of beer, which normally wouldn’t constitute a temptation to him. But someone tells him, “Drink it or I’ll shoot you.” How strong will be the temptation to drink of it?


What do you mean by “different temptation”? The form of the temptation varies, but the essence of any temptation is always the same – to do something against God’s will. Of course Christ faced the same temptations we face, but these temptations were also the same that Adam and Eve faced.

“With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us.” {DA 116.4}


No, you are confusing things. There are two imageries slightly different here. The carnal mind, the old nature, (self) dies, or is crucified. Then your mind, your nature, is renewed. It’s the same mind, yet it is a new mind. It’s the same nature, yet it is a new nature. You are still you, yet you are a new you.


As we have already discussed, Ellen White uses the word nature referring to different things. When she refers to Christ, the term “sinful nature” excludes the moral/spiritual aspect, but when she refers to us, the moral/spiritual aspect is included.

“Christ says: ... I will transform your weak, sinful nature into the divine image, giving it beauty and perfection.” {TMK 106.3}


The only desires which arise without an act of the will are physical reactions – which are not the same as sinful propensities.


You are equating temptation with desire, which is not correct. Satan’s objective with the temptation is to arise the desire, because he knows that when this happens he has won the battle. It was thus that he obtained the victory over Eve.



I don’t think this must be the case. Satan will tempt us to put self first, but we don’t need to have the desire to put self first.


This is how it fits: you want to imply that I believe the same thing as the holy flesh people, and I am demonstrating that this is not true at all. Sinful tendencies can be removed, not the sinful nature. As long as we live the Holy Spirit will need to supernaturally implant in us the enmity against Satan, while in Adam this enmity was natural. As long as we live we will have to keep our will surrendered to God, while Adam's will and God's will harmonized perfectly.

???
The quote mentions two sources of temptation:
1) Satan
2) The evil of our own hearts.

Is there a 3d source Ellen White forgot to mention?