I don't believe that either. But neither do I think that all of them must remain in us until Jesus comes.

I haven't asked this before. I'm not asking about sinful nature. I understand that you have an idea of "sinful nature" which is variable, depending on the circumstances. I also agree that Ellen White uses this term in different ways, depending on the context. However, that Jesus Christ took "our sinful nature" only makes sense if she's using the same sense for Jesus Christ and us in this sentence, of course.

Anyway, I'm asking specifically about sinful flesh. Sinful flesh wouldn't contain a moral or spiritual nature, would it? So we shouldn't have any reservations in saying that Christ came in sinful flesh.

For example, in Romans 8:3 where it says that Christ condemned sin in the flesh, this means that because Christ came in my flesh, and overcame sin in my sinful flesh, He condemned sin in my sinful flesh. Would you agree with that?



The same temptation is *weaker* for someone who has sinful flesh? That doesn't make any sense. That should be obvious.

All along here I've been talking about the same temptation. You seem to be talking about two different temptations. I'm saying if you take a temptation, X (say to look with lust upon someone), that temptation would be harder for someone with sinful flesh than for someone with sinless flesh.



I agree with this.



I agree with this too.



Christ took "our sinful nature." In this phrase, this "our sinful nature" must be the same for Him as for us. That's obvious, isn't it?

To answer your question, the sinful nature which Christ took couldn't be transformed; it could only be crucified, which is what Christ did. And this is exactly the same for us (i.e., "sinful nature" in this context, as used in this phrase, not as used elsewhere where she speaks of it's being renewed).



Not as used in the phrase, "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature." It can't be. In some other context, it could.



I said "only after we are aware of a temptation." Why would you interpret this to mean "I wish/want to commit adultery"?

Having a temptation is not a sin. You seem to think that it is. This seems to be a fundamental difference between us. You cannot admit that Christ had sinful flesh, because this would mean that Christ had temptations, which, to your mind, would be sin. This is how it seems to me.

What I think is that Christ had temptations, like we do, and that Christ always said "no" to these temptations, just like we need to do. He overcame by relying on divine strength, outside of Himself, just like us.



Not all hereditary tendencies are genetic. It wouldn't make sense to say that genetic tendencies are removed. They're not. For example, a person born with perfect pitch retains that his whole life, whether he pursues music or not.



Nobody ever crucified self like Christ did. I think you're meaning something very different than I am, however. I suppose I should ask you to clarify what you mean.

What I mean is that Christ, by virtue of having sinful flesh, and accepting the working of the great law of heredity, the results of which is shown in His ancestors, had the same hereditary inclinations as is common to fallen man. By faith, Christ overcame these inclinations, denying Himself His whole life. So when He says for us to take up our cross and follow Him, He's not asking us to do something different than what He did, which is to crucify self. The cross which we carry crucifies self, as it did for Christ. Otherwise we're not "following" Him. We would be doing something He never did.



As I said, this is the crux of the whole controversy. Did Christ have, by virtue of His sinful flesh, the same tendencies we have? Take away this issue, and there's no point of disagreement. It's the only aspect of "sinful nature" which matters. There's no disagreement on any other point.

So in relation to the Holy Flesh movement, you're saying the same thing they were. When they were speaking of having sinless flesh, they mean exactly the same thing as you mean when you speak of not having any tendencies to sin (i.e. having all tendencies to sin removed from the flesh). Without these tendencies you have "holy flesh."

The ones that remain until Jesus arrives, do they corrupt and contaminate, are we guilty in the sight of God because of them (even if we don't cherish them or act them out in word or deed)?

PS - When you don't respond to certain parts of my posts am I to assume you don't want to talk about them?

Of course.


Yes, but “flesh” here means what to you? To me it means body.


Yes, of course. It’s harder for you because you are weaker. However, the person without the propensities of sin can face much stronger temptations than those you face. You will never be subject to the temptations he faces, because they are much beyond your strength.
(Just to clarify, I don’t believe Jesus had sinless flesh, but that He didn't have the propensities of sin.)


Ellen White never said that Christ crucified His nature/flesh.
The word “flesh” means two things:
1) The body
2) The lower, corrupt nature (this is the flesh that needs to be crucified).

“The words ‘flesh’ ... embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself [i.e., the body] cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh [i.e., the lower, corrupt nature], with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; ... The corrupt thought is to be expelled.” {HP 198.5}


Because “wish/want/would like to” is what “desire” is all about. That’s why I’m saying that when you desire, you have already sinned. As I said in a previous post, “desire” goes much beyond simply having your attention called to something, or becoming aware of something. It has to do with wishing, wanting.


Let’s suppose that the congenital lameness of the man of Acts 3 was genetic. If it was genetic, this means he couldn’t be healed?


Ellen White says clearly that Christ didn’t have to subdue self. The quote, again:

“Christ did not need to fast for forty days because of inward corruption, or to subdue self. He was sinless. It was on our account that He fasted.” {21MR 11.4}


The term “sinful flesh,” or “sinful nature,” as applied to Christ, involve only His body, not His spiritual/moral nature. And sinful tendencies aren’t in the body, but in the spiritual/moral nature.


Maybe – which means that they were leaving out of consideration factors which were essential to determine if Christ had holy flesh or not. Therefore, their definition of sinless flesh was wrong.

As I've explained to Tom, sinful propensities generate sinful desires, and the sinful desire is a sin prohibited by the 10th commandment. If we become aware of the sinful desire, we need to confess it; if we don't become aware, this is a sin of ignorance.


No! Sorry if I gave this impression. I generally do not respond to points with which I seem to be in agreement, only to points I need to clarify or to points I disagree with. But if I fail to respond to a point you wish me to clarify, please call my attention to it.

James seemed to think such sinful desires were temptations and did not become sin until the thought is cherished and/or acted out in word or deed. "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin."

This makes perfect sense to me. All temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings. Right? Otherwise, how could we be tempted if we are unconscious of it? In order to be tempted we have to be aware of it, correct? And, as humans, we first become aware of things in the form of thoughts and feelings.

Ellen wrote that Paul fought daily to rein in his natural desires and inclinations. She also said that he knew he would have to do this so long as life should last. Here's how she put it:

"Paul knew that his warfare against evil would not end so long as life should last. Ever he realized the need of putting a strict guard upon himself, that earthly desires might not overcome spiritual zeal. With all his power he continued to strive against natural inclinations. Ever he kept before him the ideal to be attained, and this ideal he strove to reach by willing obedience to the law of God. His words, his practices, his passions--all were brought under the control of the Spirit of God. {AA 314.3}

Apparently this point was very important to her because she wrote about it often. Here is a sampling of what she felt about it:


She seems to have believed that it is possible and necessary to crucify certain unholy desires and inclinations. In such cases, they totally cease to tempt and annoy. But she also makes it clear that the remaining sinful desires and inclinations must be reined in and subjected to the control of a sanctified will and reason and conscience. In such cases, they continue to tempt and annoy, but are not cherished or acted out. Finally, and best of all, she makes it wonderfully clear that God implants, at the moment of rebirth, new desires, new tastes, new motives, new tendencies, new affections, and new appetites with which we are able to cultivate sinless traits of character.

"This ingrafting in Christ separates us from the world. No longer will we love the society of the vile and contaminated and contaminating. We will be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Then rich clusters of fruit are borne. The graces of the Spirit are borne in love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness. We have new affections, new appetites, new tastes. Old things have passed away, and lo, all things have become new. {TSB 135.2}

"The old nature, born of blood and the will of the flesh, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The old ways, the hereditary tendencies, the former habits, must be given up; for grace is not inherited. The new birth consists in having new motives, new tastes, new tendencies. Those who are begotten unto a new life by the Holy Spirit, have become partakers of the divine nature, and in all their habits and practices they will give evidence of their relationship to Christ. When men who claim to be Christians retain all their natural defects of character and disposition, in what does their position differ from that of the worldling? They do not appreciate the truth as a sanctifier, a refiner. They have not been born again. A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong. {Mar 237.1}

We can easily see what it meant to the SDA's of the 1890's, which is when most of these statements were made.







We see that the idea that Christ's taking our sinful flesh means reaching us where we are, taking fallen humanity "with all its hereditary inclinations."

Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. His sinless nature had no tendencies to sin. Morally and spiritually, Christ, by virtue of His nature, was not inclined to sin. Christ took upon His sinless nature, our sinful nature, with its inclinations. Christ never yielded to these inclinations, so His nature (neither His own sinless nature, nor His assumed sinful nature) was not corrupted.

Within Christ was a battle, because of these two natures, which war against one another:



This is reminiscent of Gal. 5:



This is a fight which Christ fought and won.



This is the same theme EGW touched upon in the DA quote:



This must involve more than simply getting hungry and tired. Our temptations and sorrows involve "hereditary inclinations."

Regarding the sinful desire which the 10th commandment prohibits, this is a sinful desire which involves our will. We're not held accountable for things which do not involve our will.



No light = no sin. Why? Because the will is not involved. EGW makes the same point in saying that the flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God. The 10th commandment is not prohibiting our having sinful flesh, but upon acting upon temptations which come upon us. That the flesh finds something appealing is not sin. It is the act of the mind that brings out sin, not the existence of tendencies in the flesh. The flesh can entice us, but it's not sin.



When desire has conceived, then it gives birth to sin. Before conception, there is no sin, which is precisely the same principle as the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.



More to the point, it means that the same arguments used to refute their positions refute yours.

Tom,

The word “flesh” means only two things: 1) the body, and 2) the lower corrupt nature. You must choose which one applies to Christ.

Another point. Taking fallen humanity “with all its hereditary inclinations” is clearly a human addition to what Ellen White wrote.


I have two questions:
1) Christ, as a human being, had a physical, an intellectual, and a moral/spiritual nature. What you are saying is that Christ, because of His divine nature, had a human spiritual/moral nature free from any taint of sin?
2) Where were the inclinations to sin of Christ’s human nature? In His body?


They do not necessarily involve hereditary inclinations. The key word is "necessarily."


So when you think for the first time, “I would like to commit adultery,” the will is not involved? You wish it, yet the will is not involved? So the will is involved and the tenth commandment is broken only at the second time you think this? Do you mean on the same day? And if it is two days later, is this considered as the second time or does the count begin again? And if it is on the same day but with a different person, does the count begin again?


In fact, to be more precise, they advocated both “moral purity” (absence of sin) and “sinless flesh” (incorruption); the latter was a result of the former.
Now, which arguments do you refer to, specifically?

Mike,
So when you have an unholy desire you don’t consider it a sin and don’t see any need to confess it?

One of the quotes you posted says, “A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” Another one says, “The thorns in the heart must be uprooted and cast out, for good and evil cannot grow in the heart at the same time. Unsanctified human inclinations and desires must be cut away from the life as hindrances to Christian growth.”

It sounds like you believe in verbal inspiration? Especially of Ellen White? Is this correct? You say the word "flesh" can only mean two things because of a single sentence which Ellen White wrote, isn't that right?

Taking fallen human with all its hereditary inclinations is not a human addition to what Ellen White wrote, but a human being explaining what Ellen White wrote. The human being read in public from the Desire of Ages, explained what that meant, and this was published in the Review and Herald. This human being was in close correspondence with Ellen White at the time, as the two of them were formulating a strategy, and implementing it, to fight the Holy Flesh ideas, which are very similar in logic (identical, actually, it seems) to what you are saying.

Your ideas require the suspending of common sense in a number of matters. First of all, we have to assume that Ellen White didn't care that the Holy Flesh logic was correct, and the SDA's who were confronting them were incorrect. We'd also have to assume that she and Haskell never spoke of the matter, since if they did, Haskell would have known what she thought, and certainly wouldn't have publicly interpret her writings diametrically opposed to what she actually believed. We'd also have to assume that Ellen White didn't care if her writings were publicly misinterpreted in the most public forum available by the most visible leaders of the church.

And this is just one incident.

To mention another, she endorsed a post-lapsarian sermon by W. W. Prescott, the theme of which was that Christ came in sinful flesh. He made a big deal of this. Why? Because Christ had a body which could become tired or hungry? That makes no sense. There must be some reason why Prescott emphasized this point over and over (some three dozen times!) in this sermon.

Now an interesting thing to take note of is that in her endorsement of the sermon, Ellen White emphasized that Prescott demonstrated that obedience to the law was possible. But Prescott was speaking of Christ's taking sinful flesh. Therefore, in Ellen White's mind, there is a direct connection between the fact that Christ came in sinful flesh, and our being able to obey the law.

Prescott's sermon is textbook post-lapsarian logic. Christ came in our flesh, overcame sin in that flesh, thus serving as an example for us, as well as making it possible for us to overcome. His arguments throught the sermon are the same as other post-lapsarians, most notably Jones. There can be no doubt that Prescott was deeply influence by Jones. The reasoning runs the same way.

So, if your views were correct, we'd have to make the assumption that Ellen White endorsed Prescott's sermon, while secretly holding a contrary position on the very matter which was the theme of Jones sermons.

She endorsed Jones and Waggoner over a thousand times(!). *Not once* did she express the opinion that either Jones or Waggoner were in error on the views of Christ's humanity, although it was a subject (perhaps *the* subject) that both emphasized so strongly. Jones said there was salvation in this very thing (That Christ took our fallen nature; Prescott said a similar thing). Once while traveling with Jones and Waggoner, Ellen White responded to a question in response to their teaching explaining why it was that Christ must have taken a nature like ours.

I don't see how these inconsistencies can be brushed away.



In context, they necessarily do, since EGW was stating that Christ, like every child of Adam, accepted the working of the law of heredity for this purpose. To suppose that she is saying that Christ accepted the working of the law of heredity so He could share in our sorrows for some other purpose not having to do with heredity makes no sense.



Why do you think this is what is being thought? Why couldn't the thinking go like this: "I would like to have sex with him/her. Wait a moment. I'm married. That would be wrong. I reject this temptation." Why would this be sin?

Do you think Christ was not sexually tempted?



What's the difference between wishing something and willing something? Obviously I'm not saying the will is not involved if you will to do something.



Think what? It's very simple. The will is involved only at the second you will something.



What are you talking about? A person is tempted to do something. That temptation can be rejected or not. Once a person understands that one is being tempted, the will comes into play. A person wills to do the prohibited thing, or not. Christ never so willed.

The sin is in the willing of some deed or thought. It's not in the having of a temptation.



The one I pointed out several times:


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.