Mark, yes, I have used the word "conquer", but I mean it in the sense of eliminate. By the grace of God we can, and must, control our sinful flesh nature, including our thoughts, but we can never completely silence the voice of our sinful nature.

As we develop new habits of character certain former habits will gradually lose their power and appeal. In fact, in some cases, our former old man character habits completely stop being a weakness or source of temptation. Thank you, Jesus.

Rosangela, thank you for posting all those awesome quotes. Well done, indeed. I believe a key to understanding how Sister White intended for us to understand her use of the word “crucify” is seen in the following passage:

AH 127, 128
The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2}

To crucify the affections and lusts that reign and remain within us we must resist the temptations generated by our fallen flesh nature. But we will never totally rid ourselves of them in this lifetime. The same is not true, however, of crucifying our old man character habits of sin.

When we crucify our old man, our character is purged and we begin with a clean slate. Like Jesus, we must grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. We must develop the sinless traits God implanted within us “more and more unto the perfect day.” (Prov. 4:18) It doesn’t take us lifetime to accumulate the fruits of the Spirit, the sinless character traits of God. Instead, it takes us a lifetime to mature in them, which includes eternal life.

COL 330
All righteous attributes of character dwell in God as a perfect, harmonious whole, and every one who receives Christ as a personal Saviour is privileged to possess these attributes. {COL 330.2}

DA 676
When we live by faith on the Son of God, the fruits of the Spirit will be seen in our lives; not one will be missing. {DA 676.4}

Old Tom:Using the suggested methodology would lead us to the conclusion that "self" = "the old disobedient nature" or "the carnal mind". This would be an erroneous conclusion, because unfallen Adan had a self, as has been pointed out.

Rosangela:This is not an erroneous conclusion. She is obviously referring to sinful self - selfishness - the only self sinful beings possess.

Tom:"Self" has a broader meaning than "the carnal mind". It can be applied to unfallen Adam. "Carnal mind" cannot. This shows the words "self" and "carnal mind" are not interchangeable, and demonstrates a pitfall of the methodology you are using.

As "self" has a broader meaning than "carnal mind", so does "nature" have a broader meaning than either "flesh" or "character". They are not interchangeable. One needs to look at the context to see how the word "nature" should be understood.

Tom,

I don't make any statements nor draw any conclusions on the basis of a superficial exam of a subject. I've examined hundreds of statements of EGW, and made dozens of word searches at the EGW website. Now, of course I am aware that words may have more than one meaning, and of course I'm taking this into consideration. I'm also taking the context into consideration, for not doing so would be irresponsible.

The words we are discussing are mentioned together in several instances, denoting they are closely related.

Sinful self (selfishness) and the old nature, or the carnal mind, can be considered, in a broad sense, synonyms. But, if you wish to be more specific, it could be said that sinful self is the essence of the carnal mind, and the carnal mind is the essence of the old nature, or sinful self is the essence of the old nature.

"Flesh" and "nature" can have other nuances of meaning, but in this context they are synonyms.

About "character" and "nature", it can be easily seen that in this context they are synonyms:

When man sinned, all heaven was filled with sorrow. . . . Out of harmony with the nature of God, unyielding to the claims of His law, naught but destruction was before the human race. {TMK 18.3}

When man sinned, all heaven was filled with sorrow; for through yielding to temptation, man became the enemy of God, a partaker of the satanic nature. The image of God in which he had been created was marred and distorted. The character of man was out of harmony with the character of God; for through sin man became carnal, and the carnal heart is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 6}

By accepting the satanic attribute of selfishness, man got out of harmony with the nature of God, or out of harmony with the character of God, which is love. He became carnal, with a carnal heart, a carnal mind or carnal nature. Which is the part you don't agree with?

What I disagree with is from a previous post, which has the following:

quote:

---

Mike:Character and sinful nature are two totally separate aspects of our human make up. Jesus will not replace our sinful nature until He returns. In the meantime, we are stuck with it. By the grace of God we may control it, but we cannot conquer or eliminate it or transform it into a sinless nature.

Rosangela:
Mike, Mind, heart, nature and character are all synonyms, and Ellen White so considers them.

---

Tom:I think what Mike wrote was correct. Your comment seems to be a rebut of his position. If it disagrees with what he wrote, then I think it's incorrect (since I think what Mike wrote is correct).

I don't know why you mentioned you don't draw conclusions based on a superficial examination of a subject. What's the relevance of this comment? I wasn't suggesting you were being superficial, was I? (Phil. 3:4,5)

I spent countless hours at Andrews in the basement (the EGW part) and have written several hundred pages on this subject. I don't see the relevance of this either.

When you write that nature and character are synonomous in this context, I don't know what "in this context" is referring to. Certainly nature and character can at times be synonymns, but that's saying something much different than the blanket statement that "mind, heart, nature and character are all synonymns, and Ellen White so considers them." Ellen White was very careful in how she uses these words, and she used them differently depending on the circumstances.

Ellen White did not exist in a vacuum. She didn't have her own lexicon on words. All her SDA contemporaries were post-lapsairans (believed Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall) as well as she. Her view on the nature of Christ was not unique, and her use of words was similar to that of her contemporaries.

Tom,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the impression I got was that you thought that the quotes I submitted were just isolated quotes taken out of context and put together to prove a viewpoint, as you said repeatedly that my methodology was faulty. I made that comment just to assure you that a careful research had been done, and that I had carefully considered the meaning of the words in the context they appeared. Because the word “day” can mean 12 hours (the light part of day) and it can mean 24 hours, if I pick all the 12-hour references in the writings of someone you cannot claim that my methodology was faulty because I did not consider the 24-hour references. I considered just the 12-hour references because my scope was exactly that.

Your problem seems to be with the word “nature”. “Nature” could refer to man’s physical nature or to his moral nature.

What I see in the EGW writings about man’s moral nature is the following:

“When man sinned, all heaven was filled with sorrow; for through yielding to temptation, man became the enemy of God, a partaker of the satanic nature. The image of God in which he had been created was marred and distorted. The character of man was out of harmony with the character of God; for through sin man became carnal, and the carnal heart is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. ... Out of harmony with the nature of God, unyielding to the claims of His law, naught but destruction was before the human race. Since the divine law is as changeless as the character of God, there could be no hope for man unless some way could be devised whereby his transgression might be pardoned, his nature renewed, and his spirit restored to reflect the image of God.” {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 7}

“After the transgression of man his nature became evil. Then was peace between Satan and fallen man. ... There is no native enmity between fallen angels and fallen men. Both are evil, and that through apostasy, and evil, wherever it exists, will always league against good. Fallen angels and fallen men join in companionship.” {GH, July 1, 1898 par. 4}

So we see here that when man sinned, he became a partaker of the satanic nature – his moral nature became evil, became carnal. Man’s character became evil, selfish, and the solution for this is the implanting of the divine nature (love) in man, causing a renewal of his moral nature.

“By nature we are alienated from God. ... God desires to heal us, to set us free. But since this requires an entire transformation, a renewing of our whole nature, we must yield ourselves wholly to Him.” {AG 313.3}

“The heart, the seat of the affections, must be transformed; the moral nature must be renewed by grace.” {ST, May 6, 1886 par. 8}

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

“When your soul is the temple for the indwelling Spirit of the Saviour, the gross elements of your nature will be consumed, and the whole being will become a living purpose.” {ST, November 30, 1888 par. 7}

So, what I'm seeing in the writings of EGW is that man’s nature is transformed and this transformation is gradual. Until Christ comes man will have a conflict with sinful or non-sinful wishes of self. Besides, he can do nothing good of himself; anything good he may do is prompted by the Holy Spirit who dwells in him.

Now, many say that since our nature is evil it is not transformed in this life, but something will happen to it (transformed? eliminated?) at Christ's coming. I don't know of any EGW quote to that effect, but I'm open to accept new concepts if they can be properly substantiated.

R:So, what I'm seeing in the writings of EGW is that man’s nature is transformed and this transformation is gradual. Until Christ comes man will have a conflict with sinful or non-sinful wishes of self. Besides, he can do nothing good of himself; anything good he may do is prompted by the Holy Spirit who dwells in him.

Tom:I agree.

R:Now, many say that since our nature is evil it is not transformed in this life, but something will happen to it (transformed? eliminated?) at Christ's coming. I don't know of any EGW quote to that effect, but I'm open to accept new concepts if they can be properly substantiated.

Tom:It's what you're referring to as the physical nature which is not transformed in this life. The flesh (also called "sinful nature") remains to tempt us. It (the flesh, also called "sinful nature") is not converted.

It seems to me if we just left out the word "nature" altogether that might be helpful. It seems not to clarify anything and just leads to confusion. I think we can get by without it.

Regarding the disagreement and methodology comments I made:

quote:

---

Mike:Character and sinful nature are two totally separate aspects of our human make up. Jesus will not replace our sinful nature until He returns. In the meantime, we are stuck with it. By the grace of God we may control it, but we cannot conquer or eliminate it or transform it into a sinless nature.

Rosangela:
Mike, Mind, heart, nature and character are all synonyms, and Ellen White so considers them.

---

Tom:I disagree with your conclusion, unless you wish your statement to be restricted in meaning to something like "Mind, heart, nature and character are sometimes all synonymns." Or perhaps you meant, "In the specific quotes I cited, mind, heart, nature and character are all synonyms, and Ellen White so consider them." This possibility seems rather likely to me.

I wasn't meaning to be critical of you personally. I only meant to point out that I disagreed with the above sentence, and that it appeared to me that your methodology had led you to what appeared to me to be a faulty conclusion. If this were the case, then your methodology would be faulty. However, it could be a case of misunderstanding where you intended your statement to be taken in a more restricted way than what appears at first glance.