This is an illustration of "the fallacy of the assumed premise." Did Ellen White say, "Here is a list of every possible source of temptation"?

Is it your belief that having a sinful nature plays no part in our temptations?

Thanks, I appreciate that.



Given you feel we're mostly agreed on this subject, please chime in! I could sure use your help!

There's no subject more important that understanding God's character. Do you agree?

Note this one:
Jesus DID NOT have this "seat of difficulty"? If He did not have it, and I do, does that mean temptations are more difficult for me? But that would contradict the SOP.

Somehow, Jesus could have 100x stronger temptations WITHOUT this "seat of difficulty" that the rest of us have, or had.

We agree there! And by beholding we are changed into the same image.

Why does this matter/



Why does this matter?



For some it would be so strong, they wouldn't care; they'd drink the beer regardless of the consequences. Thousands of people regularly make equivalent decisions. They give up their health, their lives, their families, their careers for pleasure, drink, girls, you name it.



Since the person had no propensity to drink beer, presumably it was zero before the gun entered into the question, and remained so afterward.



One that's of a different character. For example, being tempted from within, or, being tempted to do something one is inclined to do.



If you're inclined to do God's will, that's a much different temptation (i.e., different in essence, in character) than if you are not. For example, for you to be tempted to drink is different than for an alcoholic.



But He faced them having assumed a human nature which was degraded and defiled by sin, making His temptations in essence and character like ours.



These are different things. It sounds like you are confusing things here.



Not your sinful nature (or sinful flesh). It's still the same. It needs to be crucified until translation or death.



The sinful nature is not a new nature. We partake of the divine nature, thus having, like Christ, two natures. Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature. We partake of the divine nature. One could almost say that we take His sinless nature upon our own sinful nature. Thus we have two natures, one which we have by right, and one which is partaken of, or assumed (in our case, or Christ's, respectively).



What does this have to do with what I wrote above? Do you not think that covetousness involves an act of the will?

Regarding what you wrote, this isn't exactly how I would put this, but I agree with it. Desires which do not involve an act of the will are not sinful. These may be due to hereditary inclinations, which Christ also had.



You concluded I was equating them, which is not correct. I was grouping them together, to avoid having to write out two sentences, the only difference of which would be the word "temptations" vs. "desires."



Satan won the battle by misrepresenting God's character. God's character is the core issue.





This is the essence of the sinful nature (or sinful flesh) to put self first. Even Christ had to crucify self. At the resurrection, this hard-wired desire will go away, as we obtain sinless natures (or sinless flesh). Then there will be no more battle involved in doing God's will, but as long as we inhabit this flesh (or nature) there will be a battle. There's an SOP statement bringing this out in reference to the Holy Flesh doctrine, but I can't remember it well enough to find it.



So you don't believe that sinful tendencies are generated from the sinful nature (or sinful flesh)? For example, a person can be born with perfect pitch, an inclination towards musicality. This tendency remains with one throughout life. Similarly one can have an inclination towards drugs or alcohol. We all have an inclination towards selfishness.



We agree on this point.



As well as on this point.

Did these things apply to Christ? That is, did He need the Holy Spirit to implant to His human nature enmity against Satan? Did He need to keep His own will surrendered to God?

Going back to this a moment:



Here the similarities are striking. The method of victory is not depending upon divine strength to overcome, but by somehow having the sinful nature, or sinful tendency (i.e. hereditary inclination), as the case may be, removed.

Regarding #109830, Christ took both our nature and our sin. This combination gave Him what we have, either by heredity or imputation. He knew what it was like to be us. He knew the strength of our temptations. He was made to be sin for us; He bore our sin. However you wish to say it, He *was* tempted in all points as we are. He knows us; our experiences, our sufferings, our sorrows, our temptations. Our experience is not foreign to Him.



Agreed.

1. I disagree completely with the assertion that temptations are necessarily more difficult if you have sinful tendencies. In the case of the can of beer (using the same object of temptation), this is easy to demonstrate. He who doesn’t have a propensity for drinking obviously can undergo a more difficult temptation in relation to alcohol than he who has a propensity for drinking. The strength of the temptation depends on a combination of factors, and it’s easy to see that a propensity for sin may play a minimal part, or no part at all, in temptations.

2. The form of the temptation doesn’t matter – the essence is always the same.

3. The sinful nature is your old heart, the old carnal mind (which was crucified). The new nature is your new heart, the new mind. Heart and mind are renewed.

“Self--the old disobedient nature--must be crucified, and Christ must take up His abode in the heart. Thus the human agent is born again, with a new nature. ... God says, ‘A new heart will I give you.’" {ST, July 26, 1905 par. 6, 7}

4. Selfish desires (which arise from sinful propensities) are covetousness and involve an act of the will. Physical reactions are not sinful and do not involve an act of the will.

"The last commandment condemns covetousness. Every selfish desire, every degree of discontent, every act of over-reaching, every selfish gratification works to the strengthening and developing of a character which will destroy the Christlikeness of the human agent, and close the gates of the city of God against him." {17MR 113.4}

5.
This desire is prohibited by the tenth commandment.

6.
I believe they are generated by the sinful spiritual nature, but when our spiritual nature is renewed (the old nature is crucified), sinful tendencies can be corrected - turned in a new direction.

7.
This is what I understand Ellen White to be saying.

“The enmity put between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman was supernatural. With Christ the enmity was in one sense natural; in another sense it was supernatural, as humanity and divinity were combined.” {1SM 254.2}

“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}

8.
The similarities are simply based on an EGW quote:

"Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. 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 Christ declared of Himself: 'The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.' (John 14:30). Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father's commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble." --GC 623 [Notice that "sin" here is equivalent to "sinful desire."]

The difference between me and the holy flesh people is in sinful nature x sinful tendencies. The difference between me and you is in the interpretation of “sinful desire.” Now, Ellen White says clearly that the selfish desire is prohibited by the 10th commandment. She doesn’t say “the cherishing of the selfish desire,” but “the selfish desire” itself.

It is my belief that the sinful nature, in our case, is "the evil of our own hearts."

As I said previously, the term "sinful nature," as applied to Christ, does not refer to His spiritual nature, but when applied to us, refers to our spiritual nature, since Ellen White says our sinful nature must be renewed.

The essence of temptation is putting self first. That's what it really comes down to. Now isn't it clear that if one has a sinful nature, the temptation to put self first would be greater than for one who doesn't?



The essence is putting self first, something decidedly more difficult for those with sinful natures, which is attested to by 6 millennia of human history.



Christ took upon His own sinless nature our own sinful nature, right? So, on the basis of your statement here, you're asserting that Christ took a carnal mind. Either you're mistaken about what the sinful nature is, or Ellen White is mistaken in asserting that Christ took it, as the idea that Christ took a carnal mind is untenable.



A desire which arises from a sinful propensity involves an act of the will? How so? Can we will the sinful propensity not to generate the desire? "Sinful propensity, I will you not to generate any desire!"

What sense does that make? No, we have no control over such things. Only *after* we become aware of the temptation can we deal with it. When we are presented with an idea which we determine, after thinking about it, is wrong, and choose not to do the wrong thing, we have not sinned. It's not a sin to have a temptation or to be tempted.



Only desires which involve choice are prohibited by any commandment. We are not held accountable for temptations over which we have no control (i.e., for the existence of the temptation), only for how we react to the temptation.



Which isn't genetic then. Right? We can't control our genes and chromosomes, so you must not believe that our sinful natures are transmitted to us by our genes and chromosomes. I don't see how your idea makes any sense.

Consider the inclination for music. Doesn't this come from the genes and chromosomes? A person has perfect pitch one's whole life, even if the aptitude for music is never developed. It doesn't go away.

Similarly we all have an inclination to put self first. This inclination must be resisted; self must be crucified. This is the victory that Christ obtained for us. He assumed our sinful nature, with its tendency to put self first, and always crucified self, which is why He could enjoin us to follow Him and pick up our cross, the cross on which self is crucified.



I don't know what "x" means. Does this mean "versus"?

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference in terms of substance, just one of terminology. You use the same logic they do, logic which was rejected by Ellen White as not having a thread of truth to it.

The way the Holy Flesh ideas were resisted is the same way I'm resiting your ideas; by pointing out that the idea that Christ did not take a nature like ours is correct. If your ideas were correct, they wouldn't have used this tack.

By the way, isn't the essence of a sinful nature its tendencies? When the Holy Flesh people argued that Christ had the nature of Adam before the fall, what could they have meant, other than a nature without the tendencies that ours has? Just how do you think their ideas were different than yours? (other than terminology). Removing the tendencies of the fallen nature is tantamount to removing the nature. You're saying the same thing they were.



It's obvious she has in mind the cherishing of that desire. She's not saying we're condemned over that of which we have no control. There are many places where she affirms that sin is incurred only when the will is involved. Do you dispute this?

Here's one:



Sin is dependent upon the will.

When Ellen White says that Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature, the "our sinful nature" which Christ took must be "our sinful nature." That is, ours. The same as ours. What ours is. Otherwise what she said doesn't make any sense.

To avoid ambiguities, I like to speak of "sinful flesh," as this is less apt to confusion than "sinful nature." In terms of Christology (i.e., discussing the human nature which Christ took) "sinful nature" means the same thing as "sinful flesh."

Let's try it this way. Christ had exactly the same flesh that we have; sinful flesh. Do you agree with this?