Is there a relation between Christ's assumed human nature and rightesousness by faith?

The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan's temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God's holy law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God's power to help in every emergency. Man is, through faith, to be a partaker in the divine nature, and to overcome every temptation wherewith he is beset. {7BC 929.6}

The great teacher came into our world, not only to atone for sin but to be a teacher both by precept and example. He came to show man how to keep the law in humanity, so that man might have no excuse for following his own defective judgment. We see Christ's obedience. His life was without sin. His lifelong obedience is a reproach to disobedient humanity. The obedience of Christ is not to be put aside as altogether different from the obedience He requires of us individually. Christ has shown us that it is possible for all humanity to obey the laws of God. {3SM 135.2}

The obedience that Christ rendered is exactly the obedience that God requires from human beings today. It was the obedience of a son. He served His Father in willingness and freedom, and with love, because it was the right thing for Him to do. "I delight to do Thy will, O My God," He declared; "yea, Thy law is within My heart." Thus we are to serve God. Our obedience must be heart-service. It was always this with Christ. If we love Him, we shall not find it a hard task to obey. We shall obey as members of the royal family. We may not be able to see the path before us, but we shall go forward in obedience, knowing that all issues and results are to be left with God. {ST, January 25, 1899 par. 9}

"Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf."

The purpose of this topic is not do debate what human nature Christ took, but to discuss if and how Christ's assumed human nature impacts righteousness by faith

Does what human nature Christ assumed impact righteousness by faith? If so, how?

The purpose of this topic is not do debate what human nature Christ took, but to discuss if and how Christ's assumed human nature impacts righteousness by faith (We have other threads discussing what human nature Christ assumed).

Adam and Eve, before the Fall, possessed advantages not available to us nowadays. We cannot point to them, therefore, to prove living without sinning is possible. Why not?

Because they sinned!

Obviously, if Christ could not be tempted, and if He could not fight our battles, He could not be our helper. He had to assume man's nature. But to what extent must Christ's human nature go? J & W taught that, to be our helper, Christ must be, and indeed was, born with the propensities of sin,

something which there is no basis for asserting.

T:The purpose of this topic is not do debate what human nature Christ took, but to discuss if and how Christ's assumed human nature impacts righteousness by faith

R:As I see it, it's impossible to discuss one thing without discussing the other.

MM:Adam and Eve, before the Fall, possessed advantages not available to us nowadays. We cannot point to them, therefore, to prove living without sinning is possible. Why not?

R:Because they sinned!

What I'm wishing to discuss is your assertion that it doesn't make any difference what point of view one holds in regards to Christ's human nature in respect to righteousness by faith.

R: Obviously, if Christ could not be tempted, and if He could not fight our battles, He could not be our helper. He had to assume man's nature. But to what extent must Christ's human nature go? J & W taught that, to be our helper, Christ must be, and indeed was, born with the propensities of sin
T: No they didn't!

Clearly what MM meant is that Adam and Eve cannot be pointed to to prove that fallen humanity could live without sinning.

To begin with, that wasn't Satan's accusation.

After the fall of man, Satan declared that human beings were proved to be incapable of keeping the law of God, and he sought to carry the universe with him in this belief.

Satan's words appeared to be true, and Christ came to unmask the deceiver. The Majesty of heaven undertook the cause of man, and with the same facilities that man may obtain, withstood the temptations of Satan as man must withstand them. This was the only way in which fallen man could become a partaker of the divine nature. In taking human nature, Christ was fitted to understand man's trials and sorrows and all the temptations wherewith he is beset. Angels who were unacquainted with sin could not sympathize with man in his peculiar trials. Christ condescended to take man's nature, and was tempted in all points like as we, that He might know how to succor all who should be tempted. {1SM 252.1}

In assuming humanity Christ took the part of every human being. He was the Head of humanity. A Being divine and human, with His long human arm He could encircle humanity, while with His divine arm He could lay hold of the throne of the Infinite.
What a sight was this for Heaven to look upon! Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. This was humiliation greater than finite man can comprehend. God was manifest in the flesh. {1SM 253}

He lived the law of God, and honored it in a world of transgression, revealing to the heavenly universe, to Satan, and to all the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that through His grace humanity can keep the law of God. . . . {AG 42.5}

Because man fallen could not overcome Satan with his human strength, Christ came from the royal courts of heaven to help him with His human and divine strength combined. Christ knew that Adam in Eden with his superior advantages might have withstood the temptations of Satan and conquered him. He also knew that it was not possible for man out of Eden, separated from the light and love of God since the Fall, to resist the temptations of Satan in his own strength. In order to bring hope to man, and save him from complete ruin, He humbled Himself to take man's nature, that with His divine power combined with the human He might reach man where he is. He obtained for the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that strength which it is impossible for them to gain for themselves, that in His name they might overcome the temptations of Satan.--Redemption, or the Temptation of Christ, page 44. {Te 121.2}

R: Obviously, if Christ could not be tempted, and if He could not fight our battles, He could not be our helper. He had to assume man's nature. But to what extent must Christ's human nature go? J & W taught that, to be our helper, Christ must be, and indeed was, born with the propensities of sin
T: No they didn't!

R:Yes, they did!

Really, if you're going to make an assertion like this, you ought to quote *something* which supports it.

Or are you trying to make any distinction between propensities of sin and sinful propensities?

T:What I'm wishing to discuss is your assertion that it doesn't make any difference what point of view one holds in regards to Christ's human nature in respect to righteousness by faith.

R:Let's invert things.

I suppose J & W would agree with Ellen White´s view on righteousness by faith.

But Ellen White preached righteousness by faith without preaching that Christ was born with propensities of sin/disobedience.

It was *after* the fall that Satan declared that human beings were proved incapable of keeping the law of God.

At any rate, if one just considers things logically, it doesn't make any sense to assert that man, as he was created, could not keep the law. No one would believe that.

The question is if *fallen* man can obey the law, and it's easy to see how one could question that.

I'm not trying to do anything until you produce some evidence to establish your assertion. You've made a claim. You should provide some evidence to support it.

She taught the same thing Jones and Waggoner did, of course. Nobody -- not a single soul -- had the slightest doubt that this was true in the time in which Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen White were preaching together.

T:She taught the same thing Jones and Waggoner did, of course. Nobody -- not a single soul -- had the slightest doubt that this was true in the time in which Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen White were preaching together.

R::Perhaps people weren't paying attention to the details.

Ellen White taught that Christ had no propensities to sin in His human nature, while J & W taught Christ had propensities to sin in His human nature.

"Letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature."—Review. February 18, 1890.

T:I'm not trying to do anything until you produce some evidence to establish your assertion. You've made a claim. You should provide some evidence to support it.

R:OK:

"All the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in his human flesh" (1895 sermons, p. 266).

The sermon link is no longer working, so I can't provide it, but you can find the sentence quoted through Google.

Rosangela, I was happy to read you believe Jesus proved we can live without sinning the same as He did. However, it sounds like you believe we must first be restored to Adam's pre-fall sinless state before we can live without sinning. Did I misunderstand you?

It would have had to have been before the fall to make the point you were making.



But there were millions of worlds, each with similar trees, with trillions of creatures keeping the law. There were quadrillions of "creature hours" of obedience to show the law could be kept.

[quote]R:This was his argument in heaven. The argument was "proven" with the fall of man.

T:The question is if *fallen* man can obey the law, and it's easy to see how one could question that.

R:No.

R:Christ came to show that even fallen man can obey the law, if he returns to the pre-fall condition: connection with God. Thus, "Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement."

R: Ellen White taught that Christ had no propensities to sin in His human nature, while J & W taught Christ had propensities to sin in His human nature.
T: They were in perfect agreement. You keep making assertions with no evidence. Please provide some evidence for your assertions.

R: Ellen White taught that Christ had no propensities to sin in His human nature, while J & W taught Christ had propensities to sin in His human nature.
T: They were in perfect agreement. You keep making assertions with no evidence. Please provide some evidence for your assertions.

???
Haven't I already done that?

All the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in his human flesh (1895 sermons, p. 266).

R: "All the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in his human flesh" (1895 sermons, p. 266).
T: You disagree with this?

T:It was *after* the fall that Satan declared that human beings were proved incapable of keeping the law of God.
R:Obviously. It couldn't have been *before* the fall.
T: It would have had to have been before the fall to make the point you were making.

You're saying Satan's argument in heaven is that the law could not be kept? This is obviously false, as demonstrated by the millions of worlds. Who would believe such an argument?

Now once man had fallen, it could be argued that there was no hope for man, and no way that fallen man could keep the law. That's a reasonable argument.

R:Christ came to show that even fallen man can obey the law, if he returns to the pre-fall condition: connection with God. Thus, "Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement."
T: He could only do this by taking man's fallen nature. Otherwise He'd just be proving that unfallen man could keep the law.

It seems to me that "mind" has to do with things like, how we think, decisions we make, our paradigm, things like that, not our DNA.

Like personality traits, character traits are inherited, but they have to do with the mind, and they determine, partly at least, how we think and the decisions we make.

T:It was *after* the fall that Satan declared that human beings were proved incapable of keeping the law of God.
R:Obviously. It couldn't have been *before* the fall.
T: It would have had to have been before the fall to make the point you were making.

R:Before the fall human beings were keeping the law. In which way keeping the law proves that it cannot be kept?????

T:You're saying Satan's argument in heaven is that the law could not be kept? This is obviously false, as demonstrated by the millions of worlds. Who would believe such an argument?

R:All those who saw billions of angels - the highest creatures in the universe - break the law and justify themselves saying that the law of God was faulty and could not be kept.

T:Now once man had fallen, it could be argued that there was no hope for man, and no way that fallen man could keep the law. That's a reasonable argument.

R:That was an additional argument, not the only one.

R:Christ came to show that even fallen man can obey the law, if he returns to the pre-fall condition: connection with God. Thus, "Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement."
T: He could only do this by taking man's fallen nature. Otherwise He'd just be proving that unfallen man could keep the law.

R:Does man's fallen nature include his mind? That's the point.

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don’t go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus." (GCB 237)

M: Rosangela, I was happy to read you believe Jesus proved we can live without sinning the same as He did. However, it sounds like you believe we must first be restored to Adam's pre-fall sinless state before we can live without sinning. Did I misunderstand you?

R: Mike, We must return to Adam's pre-fall state of connection with God, that is, of being partakers of the divine nature/moral image.

R: Like personality traits, character traits are inherited, but they have to do with the mind, and they determine, partly at least, how we think and the decisions we make.
T: If our DNA determines the decisions we make, how do we have free will?

It's the only argument that is reasonable. When there are millions of worlds, with trillions of inhabitants, keeping the law, it's pretty silly to argue that it can't be kept.

Satan was not arguing that man, as he was created, could not keep the law, but that fallen man could not keep the law

R:Does man's fallen nature include his mind? That's the point.
T: The 1888 Messengers were clear on this point.

T:It's the only argument that is reasonable. When there are millions of worlds, with trillions of inhabitants, keeping the law, it's pretty silly to argue that it can't be kept.

R:This is not silly at all, but very clever.

It's one thing to keep the law for a time; it's quite another to keep it forever. Satan himself had kept it for a long time, until the moment he decided to rebel against it. The same had happened to man. And the same could happen to anyone. He hoped to instill these thoughts in the minds of other creatures: Is the law faulty and oppressive, like Lucifer said, and, if so, why should we continue to obey it? Is it restrictive of our liberty? Why do we need a law, anyway? Why can't we set it aside, like he did? Does the law make forgiveness impossible? Is God selfish for requiring us to obey it? If they did not receive an adequate answer, these questions would lead to the spreading of sin to the worlds above.

Satan was not arguing that man, as he was created, could not keep the law, but that fallen man could not keep the law

Fallen man in his natural state really can't keep the law.

R:Does man's fallen nature include his mind? That's the point.
T: The 1888 Messengers were clear on this point.

R:What I'm asking is, Does man's fallen nature include his mind? Yes or No?

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don’t go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus."

R: Like personality traits, character traits are inherited, but they have to do with the mind, and they determine, partly at least, how we think and the decisions we make.
T: If our DNA determines the decisions we make, how do we have free will?

R:Because we are not just our DNA; we are also our experiences.

In what ways do you think our connection differs from the connection A&E enjoyed before the Fall? And, how does it differ from the connection Jesus had while here in the "likeness of sinful flesh"? also, how does it relate to RBF?

No, this is silly. The questions you ask below are clever, but they aren't asking if the law could be kept, but if it should be kept. That's a different question.

T: Satan was not arguing that man, as he was created, could not keep the law, but that fallen man could not keep the law
R: Fallen man in his natural state really can't keep the law.
T: The question was if man, after fallen, could keep the law at all. Christ proved he could.

R:What I'm asking is, Does man's fallen nature include his mind? Yes or No?
T: As Jones points out, we should leave Christ's mind out of this. No one asserts that Christ's mind was different than what it was; selfish, or anything like that. It was His flesh that was like ours.

If our DNA determines the decisions we make, it determines our experiences as well. How does address the free will question?

If our DNA determines the decisions we make, it determines our experiences as well. How does address the free will question?

???

Our experiences is all that happens to us. What does this have to do with our DNA?

R: Like personality traits, character traits are inherited, but they have to do with the mind, and they determine, partly at least, how we think and the decisions we make.
T: If our DNA determines the decisions we make, how do we have free will?

R:Because we are not just our DNA; we are also our experiences.


T:If our DNA determines the decisions we make, it determines our experiences as well. How does this address the free will question?

R:What I'm asking is, Does man's fallen nature include his mind? Yes or No?
T: As Jones points out, we should leave Christ's mind out of this. No one asserts that Christ's mind was different than what it was; selfish, or anything like that. It was His flesh that was like ours.

R:Yes, leave Christ's mind out of this. What I'm asking is, Does man's fallen nature include his mind? Yes or No?

M: In what ways do you think our connection differs from the connection A&E enjoyed before the Fall? And, how does it differ from the connection Jesus had while here in the "likeness of sinful flesh"? also, how does it relate to RBF?

R: Good question. A & E's was an unceasing connection with God - at the moment this connection was severed, they fell. Jesus' connection with God was always unceasing - till the very end, despite His circumstances and feelings. Since we are still growing, our connection with God is more intermittent.

What I'm asking is your answer doesn't seem to address my question regarding DNA and free will. I asked if our DNA determines our decisions, then how do we have free will?

R:Yes, leave Christ's mind out of this. What I'm asking is, Does man's fallen nature include his mind? Yes or No?
T: The flesh and the mind are two different things. The flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God. This precludes it from including the mind, because if the mind were included, this statement would be false.

What made it possible for A&E to sever their connection? And, how does it differ from us severing the connection? Also, is it possible to be connected, partaking of the divine nature, while simultaneously standing before God guilty and condemned because we inhabit sinful flesh?

R:Our decisions are a product of our personality and character (motives). Through our experiences, we learn the effects which result from certain causes, we acquire values, etc. These become part of our character and impact our decisions. But at a very young age, before we are exposed to all these things, our decisions are just made on the basis of the character traits and the personality traits we've inherited.

And of course man's "fallen nature" includes his fallen (carnal) mind.

Besides, you are misunderstanding the EGW passage.

What she is explaining in the passage is precisely the opposite of what you are saying. She is pointing out that the word "flesh" in the Bible includes more than just the body, because the body of itself would not be able to act contrary to the will of God. She is saying that "flesh" is the same as "carnal lusts," and "carnal lusts" have to do with the mind, not the body. That's why the way to crucify the flesh is not by inflicting pain to the body, but by expelling the corrupt thought.

-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}

They severed their connection because they believed the serpent's words and their confidence in God was shaken. This is the same thing Satan tried to do with Christ:

No, they're not just made on the basis of our DNA. There are also external forces which impact the decisions we make, which is why parental influence is so important. If DNA were the only thing that mattered, it wouldn't matter how one was raised.

If by "nature" you mean "flesh," that's not the case, in addition to not being obvious.

Here's the passage:

T:To disconnect from Jesus, one must resist the Holy Spirit, who is constantly seek to draw our attention to Jesus Christ. So disconnecting from Jesus is itself sin.

M:Tom, I disagree. Unconsciously, unwittingly neglecting to abide in Jesus is not a sin. However, immediately after we neglect to abide in Jesus we end up committing a sin. The two separate things happen nearly simultaneously.

T:No, they're not just made on the basis of our DNA. There are also external forces which impact the decisions we make, which is why parental influence is so important. If DNA were the only thing that mattered, it wouldn't matter how one was raised.

R:I said this happens at a very young age, by which I mean few weeks/months after birth. As children begin to interact more and more with others, they are more and more subject to external influences.

T:If by "nature" you mean "flesh," that's not the case, in addition to not being obvious.

R:Didn't Christ assume human nature? And doesn't human nature include the mind? Or are you affirming that human nature doesn't include the mind?

Here's the passage:

What she says in the passage is that flesh = fleshly lusts = carnal lusts. She also says that the flesh embraces "the lower, corrupt nature." Are you saying that the body is in itself the corrupt nature? Fleshly lusts or carnal lusts are perverted physical habits, and a habit does involve the mind.

"He [Paul] charges the Galatians, 'Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.' He names some of the forms of fleshly lusts,-- 'idolatry, drunkenness, and such like.' And after mentioning the fruits of the Spirit, among which is temperance, he adds, 'And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.'" {HR, November 1, 1882 par. 13}

T: To disconnect from Jesus, one must resist the Holy Spirit, who is constantly seek to draw our attention to Jesus Christ. So disconnecting from Jesus is itself sin.

M: Tom, I disagree. Unconsciously, unwittingly neglecting to abide in Jesus is not a sin. However, immediately after we neglect to abide in Jesus we end up committing a sin. The two separate things happen nearly simultaneously.

T: As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is constantly seeking to draw our attention to Christ (AA 52). Therefore to "disconnect" one must resist the Holy Spirit. Resiting the Holy Spirit is sin. Please note, I didn't write that "unconsciously, unwittingly neglecting to abide in Jesus is a sin," but that resisting the Holy Spirit is sin.

T:If by "nature" you mean "flesh," that's not the case, in addition to not being obvious.

R:Didn't Christ assume human nature? And doesn't human nature include the mind? Or are you affirming that human nature doesn't include the mind?

T: What this talking about? Please quote enough to know what the context is. I've said on many occasions that "nature" can be ambiguous. That's why I'm explaining what "nature" means when I'm using the word. I don't believe that "sinful flesh" includes the mind.

However you define "nature," when Christ assumed the human nature He possessed a human mind, for every human being has a mind. And when we say that He had a divine mind, what we mean is not that He had a mind as God, but that He had a human mind controlled by divinity (as Adam's mind was, and as ours can be). However, human beings are not naturally born with a mind controlled by God, but with a mind in opposition to God. This mind is part and parcel of our sinful nature - and of course it's that mind - not our body - which leads us to sin.

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don't go too far. He was maade in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. He flesh was our flesh; but the mind as "the mind of Christ Jesus(A. T. Jones, GCB 237)

Most of the sinful tendencies we are born with are in our mind - not in our body. And, apart from physical impulses, what generates inward temptations are defective character traits.

Does "sinful flesh" include inherited sinful tendencies?

As I've said many times, character traits and tendencies are synonymous.

T:Does "sinful flesh" include inherited sinful tendencies?

R:As I've said many times, character traits and tendencies are synonymous.

T:Does this mean yes? It is your position that "sinful flesh" includes defective character traits and inherited sinful tendencies?

R:Yes. Isn't this also what you think?

Our sinful nature doesn't change; it's static. The flesh is what it is; it can never be converted, it can never change. The flesh can only be crucified.

My point was that because the Holy Spirit is actually doing something, which is to constantly calls one's attention to Christ, in order to disconnect, one must resist the Holy Spirit, which is sin. So one cannot disconnect without sinning. That doesn't make sense to me.

Here's a problem with this idea. Who's responsible for our maintaining a connection with Christ? Under your view, we are, right? I suppose we do this by prayer, Bible study, etc. So this is a work that we do. So as long as we do this work, we are OK. So our abiding in Christ is dependent upon our works, which sounds like righteousness by works.

What I believe is that the Holy Spirit is constantly seeking to draw our attention to Christ, and our choice is either to His work, which is a faith response, or to choose to resist, which is unbelief. There are only two choices: faith (which keeps the connection) or unbelief (which is sin). ("Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin").

To make God's grace our own, we must act our part. The Lord does not propose to perform for us either the willing or the doing. His grace is given to work in us to will and to do, but never as a substitute for our effort. Our souls are to be aroused to cooperate. The Holy Spirit works in us, that we may work out our own salvation. . . . Fine mental qualities and a high tone of moral character are not the result of accident. God gives opportunities; success depends upon the use made of them. The openings of Providence must be quickly discerned and eagerly entered. There are many who might become mighty men, if, like Daniel, they would depend upon God for grace to be overcomers, and for strength and efficiency to do their work. {AG 111.3}

It is necessary to maintain a living connection with heaven, seeking as often as did Daniel--three times a day--for divine grace to resist appetite and passion. Wrestling with appetite and passion unaided by divine power will be unsuccessful; but make Christ your stronghold, and the language of your soul will be, "In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us" (Romans 8:37). Said the apostle Paul, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (1 Corinthians 9:27). {AG 111.4}

Let no one think he can overcome without the help of God. You must have the energy, the strength, the power, of an inner life developed within you. You will then bear fruit unto godliness, and will have an intense loathing of vice. You need to constantly strive to work away from earthliness, from cheap conversation, from everything sensual, and aim for nobility of soul and a pure and unspotted character. Your name may be kept so pure that it cannot justly be connected with anything dishonest or unrighteous, but will be respected by all the good and pure, and it may be written in the Lamb's book of life, to be immortalized among the holy angels. {AG 111.5}

Man, in the work of saving of the soul, is wholly dependent upon God. He cannot of himself move one step toward Christ unless the Spirit of God draws him, and this drawing is ever, and will continue until man grieves the Holy Ghost by his persistent refusal. . . . {HP 27.2}

The Spirit is constantly showing to the soul glimpses of the things of God, and then a divine presence seems to hover near, and if the mind responds, if the door of the heart is opened, Jesus abides with the human agent. . . . {HP 27.3}

The Spirit of God does not propose to do our part, either in the willing or the doing. . . . As soon as we incline our will to harmonize with God's will, the grace of Christ stands ready to cooperate with the human agent; but it will not be the substitute to do our work independent of our resolving and decidedly acting. Therefore it is not the abundance of light, and evidence piled upon evidence, that will convert the soul. It is only the human agent accepting the light, arousing the energies of the will, realizing and acknowledging that which he knows is righteousness and truth, and thus cooperating with the heavenly ministrations appointed of God in the saving of the soul. {HP 27.4}

I do not believe it is a sin to unwittingly neglect to abide in Jesus. If they deliberately choose not to abide in Jesus they will simultaneously commit a sin. But it is impossible to sin while abiding in Jesus.

M: I do not believe it is a sin to unwittingly neglect to abide in Jesus. If they deliberately choose not to abide in Jesus they will simultaneously commit a sin. But it is impossible to sin while abiding in Jesus.

T: This is obviously false. Say a person is abiding in Jesus. If what you were asserting were true, it would be impossible for this person to deliberately choose not to continue to abide in Jesus, sin doing so would be sin, and a person can't sin. Also, if one is abiding in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is constantly and actively speaking to that person, so that the person has to resist the Holy Spirit to discontinue abiding in Jesus, that would be a sin, wouldn't it? That is, isn't it a sin to resist the Holy Spirit?

Eve had overstated the words of God's command. He had said to Adam and Eve, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." In Eve's controversy with the serpent, she added "Neither shall ye touch it." Here the subtlety of the serpent appeared. This statement of Eve gave him advantage; he plucked the fruit and placed it in her hand, using her own words, He hath said, If ye touch it, ye shall die. You see no harm comes to you from touching the fruit, neither will you receive any harm by eating it. {Con 14.2}

T: This is obviously false. Say a person is abiding in Jesus. If what you were asserting were true, it would be impossible for this person to deliberately choose not to continue to abide in Jesus, sin doing so would be sin, and a person can't sin. Also, if one is abiding in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is constantly and actively speaking to that person, so that the person has to resist the Holy Spirit to discontinue abiding in Jesus, that would be a sin, wouldn't it? That is, isn't it a sin to resist the Holy Spirit?

M:Let's consider Eve. At what point was she guilty of sinning? When she unwittingly left Adam's side? When she realized she was alone and did not immediately return to Adam's side? When she continued dialoging with the serpent even though she was alarmed? When she added to God's prohibition (see quote below)? When she received the forbidden fruit? Or, when she actually ate it?

Tom, I don't believe it is a sin to deliberately choose not to abide in Jesus. What I believe is sinning follows this choice so closely that it appears to be simultaneous, but in reality they are two separate steps. The sequential relationship between faith and works is similar.

T: As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is constantly seeking to draw our attention to Christ (AA 52). Therefore to "disconnect" one must resist the Holy Spirit. Resiting the Holy Spirit is sin. Please note, I didn't write that "unconsciously, unwittingly neglecting to abide in Jesus is a sin," but that resisting the Holy Spirit is sin.

M:...By the way, I agree with you that consciously, deliberately resisting the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit is a sin. But I do not believe this happens while people are actively, aggressively abiding in Jesus.

As with Eve, it is not a sin to unconsciously neglect to abide in Jesus,

but it certainly results in sinning. Although Eve took many fatal missteps, she did not actually commit a sin until the instant she bit into the forbidden fruit.

Do you see that "sinful nature" is different than "sinful flesh"?

T: Do you see that "sinful nature" is different than "sinful flesh"?
R: I don't believe they are basically different. Do you see any difference?
T: No, not in general. Do you believe, then, that our "sinful flesh" changes? (in this life)

M: Tom, I don't believe it is a sin to deliberately choose not to abide in Jesus, to consciously reject the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit. What I believe is sinning follows this choice so closely that it appears to be simultaneous, but in reality they are two separate steps. The sequential relationship between faith and works is similar. Neglecting to abide in Jesus in not a sin, but it certainly and instantly results in sinning. People abide in Jesus by faith and through faith. Such faith results in "righteousness and true holiness."

T: Your idea:
1.Person deliberately rejects the Holy Spirit, to discontinue abiding in Jesus, but this OK (i.e., not sin).
2.Instantly the person sins.

You say believe abide in Jesus by faith and through faith. Therefore step one above is tantamount to unbelief. Therefore you don't think unbelief is a sin.

M: Tom, I don't believe it is a sin to deliberately choose not to abide in Jesus, to consciously reject the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit. What I believe is sinning follows this choice so closely that it appears to be simultaneous, but in reality they are two separate steps. The sequential relationship between faith and works is similar. Neglecting to abide in Jesus in not a sin, but it certainly and instantly results in sinning. People abide in Jesus by faith and through faith. Such faith results in "righteousness and true holiness."

T: Your idea:
1.Person deliberately rejects the Holy Spirit, to discontinue abiding in Jesus, but this OK (i.e., not sin).
2.Instantly the person sins.

You say believe abide in Jesus by faith and through faith. Therefore step one above is tantamount to unbelief. Therefore you don't think unbelief is a sin.

M:No one abiding in Jesus abides in unbelief.

They must first unwittingly neglect or willfully reject abiding in Jesus and then immediately thereafter they sin.

So you understand "sinful flesh" to be referring to the mind? And the character? So how is it that Christ took our sinful flesh?

Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. What does that mean? If I'm understanding you correctly, you understand this to mean that Christ took a sinful nature which was different than our sinful nature, and took that upon His sinless nature.

Specifically, Christ could not be tempted internally. Except when Satan was tempting him (or some other being), Christ wasn't being tempted at all. So Christ was tempted far less than we are.

No. I understand this to mean that Christ took a sinful nature which was equal to ours, but when He took it upon His divine nature, it became different from the nature we are born with, but not essentially different from the nature we have after conversion. The difference is that Christ's humanity was always completely united to divinity, while in us this complete union, after conversion, is not achieved in a moment, but gradually. Thus, Christ has always had a mind in harmony with God, while we must "be transformed by the renewing of [our] mind." He has always had a character in harmony with God, while our character must be transformed.

First of all, I don't believe that the Christian, like the unconverted, can be tempted purely from within, without an external stimulus.

Being tempted internally doesn't exclude an external suggestion.

"The apostle sought to teach the believers how important it is to keep the mind from wandering to forbidden themes or from spending its energies on trifling subjects.

Those who would not fall a prey to Satan's devices, must guard well the avenues of the soul; they must avoid reading, seeing, or hearing that which will suggest impure thoughts. The mind must not be left to dwell at random upon every subject that the enemy of souls may suggest. The heart must be faithfully sentineled, or evils without will awaken evils within, and the soul will wander in darkness." (AA 518)

Second, I don't believe Christ had "evils within," but I believe that being tempted internally is to feel the appeal of something which comes from within, and appetites and passions come from within.

And third, the idea that Christ was tempted far less than we are is laughable.

I think you missed the point. Of course they don't abide in unbelief. Did you think this was the point?

The point is you said that they abide by faith. Therefore to "unabide," to disconnect, takes an act of unbelief.



Willfully rejecting the Holy Spirit is an act of unbelief.

It sounds like by "sinful flesh" you understand something like "character," or, something that at least includes character.

I think of flesh as encompassing what EGW refers to as "lower passions," (I think that's the term she uses); basically things which would come to our brain through the brain stem. Then the will gets involved, and the higher powers gets involved. So I believe Christ's lower powers were like ours, but his higher powers were different, but our higher powers can become like his as we are converted and become sanctified. But our lower powers never change, and neither did His. These are part and parcel of being born with sinful flesh, a descendant of Adam, a member of the fallen race.

R: First of all, I don't believe that the Christian, like the unconverted, can be tempted purely from within, without an external stimulus.
T: It sounds like you mean "unlike the unconverted." That is, I think you mean that the Christian cannot be tempted purely from within, unlike the unconverted, who can be. This is what you mean?

R: Being tempted internally doesn't exclude an external suggestion.
T: One could be tempted from within by simply remembering something.

"The apostle sought to teach the believers how important it is to keep the mind from wandering to forbidden themes or from spending its energies on trifling subjects."
If one isn't tempted from within, there would be no need for training here. At least, not on the point of internal temptations, if these don't exist.

R: Second, I don't believe Christ had "evils within," but I believe that being tempted internally is to feel the appeal of something which comes from within, and appetites and passions come from within.
T: I understand that you don't believe Christ was tempted from within, therefore, from 2., Christ did not have appetites or passions within Himself. This is what you're saying?

I wonder if anyone else has this idea, that our sinful nature changes.

The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit. {DA 172.1}

"Christ came to our world because he saw that men had lost the image and nature of God. He saw that they had wandered far from the path of peace and purity, and that, if left to themselves, they would never find their way back. He came with a full and complete salvation, to change our stony hearts to hearts of flesh, to change our sinful natures into his similitude, that, by being partakers of the divine nature, we might be fitted for the heavenly courts." {YI, September 9, 1897 par. 4}

He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.—Medical Ministry, 181.

What does this transformation entail? "Death to self and sin."

Did "Christ's assumed human nature" require such a transformation? I don't believe so. Do you?

T:It sounds like by "sinful flesh" you understand something like "character," or, something that at least includes character.

R:To me, "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" involves the whole being, since the body is just the seat of the mind. The mind is the main component of what is sinful in us.

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don’t go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus.

T:I think of flesh as encompassing what EGW refers to as "lower passions," (I think that's the term she uses); basically things which would come to our brain through the brain stem. Then the will gets involved, and the higher powers gets involved. So I believe Christ's lower powers were like ours, but his higher powers were different, but our higher powers can become like his as we are converted and become sanctified. But our lower powers never change, and neither did His. These are part and parcel of being born with sinful flesh, a descendant of Adam, a member of the fallen race.

R:EGW says children inherit some qualities of mind from their parents which are of a low order. Perhaps this means defective neural pathways. But neural pathways can be rerouted.

R: First of all, I don't believe that the Christian, like the unconverted, can be tempted purely from within, without an external stimulus.
T: It sounds like you mean "unlike the unconverted." That is, I think you mean that the Christian cannot be tempted purely from within, unlike the unconverted, who can be. This is what you mean?

R:Yes, but reread the sentence. It seems correct to me.

R: Being tempted internally doesn't exclude an external suggestion.
T: One could be tempted from within by simply remembering something.

R:Yes, but a memory is usually triggered by something (or someone).

"The apostle sought to teach the believers how important it is to keep the mind from wandering to forbidden themes or from spending its energies on trifling subjects."
If one isn't tempted from within, there would be no need for training here. At least, not on the point of internal temptations, if these don't exist.

Yes, but then EGW explains how to keep the mind from wandering to forbidden themes: by avoiding reading, seeing, or hearing that which will suggest impure thoughts, and by not leaving the mind to dwell at random upon every subject that the enemy of souls may suggest. Both are external stimuli.

R: Second, I don't believe Christ had "evils within," but I believe that being tempted internally is to feel the appeal of something which comes from within, and appetites and passions come from within.
T: I understand that you don't believe Christ was tempted from within, therefore, from 2., Christ did not have appetites or passions within Himself. This is what you're saying?

R:No, I'm saying just the opposite - that Christ didn't have "evils within" which tempted Him (selfishness, pride, vanity, greed, etc.) but could be tempted by His appetites and passions, which are things that also tempt from within.

I think you missed the point. Of course they don't abide in unbelief. Did you think this was the point?

The point is you said that they abide by faith. Therefore to "unabide," to disconnect, takes an act of unbelief.



Willfully rejecting the Holy Spirit is an act of unbelief.

No one willfully rejecting the Holy Spirit is acting in unbelief.

They are fully aware of what they are doing. But they are not guilty of sinning until the instant after they stop abiding in Jesus.

Do you see that "sinful nature" is different than "sinful flesh"?

Logic demands that if Christ took "our sinful nature," Jesus could not have taken a different "sinful nature" than we have, since it is, after all, "our sinful nature."

In what ways do you think our connection differs from the connection A&E enjoyed before the Fall? And, how does it differ from the connection Jesus had while here in the "likeness of sinful flesh"? also, how does it relate to RBF?

T:Do you see that "sinful nature" is different than "sinful flesh"?

a:I think they are different. "Flesh" is one aspect of "nature." So "nature" encompasses more.

EGW:He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.—Medical Ministry, 181.


Logic demands that if Christ took "our sinful nature," Jesus could not have taken a different "sinful nature" than we have, since it is, after all, "our sinful nature."

a:Are you sure? Let's dig deeper.

Can He still succor us today?

Does He have the same nature today as we do? Or is His nature now something completely different?

R: To me, "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" involves the whole being, since the body is just the seat of the mind. The mind is the main component of what is sinful in us.
T: I don't think "sinful flesh" involves the mind, since the flesh does not involve the mind.

R:EGW says children inherit some qualities of mind from their parents which are of a low order. Perhaps this means defective neural pathways. But neural pathways can be rerouted.
T: It depends upon whether we're talking about DNA or not, doesn't it? You're not suggesting one's DNA gets rewired, are you? EGW talks about how we won't have holy flesh this side of heaven, and that as long as we live we'll have battles to overcome. These are the battles that Christ fought and overcame, as He also did not have holy flesh.

It can't be both. If it's "yes," that means "yes, it's 'unlike the unconverted.'" as opposed to "like the unconverted."

Assuming this is what you mean, I disagree, for two reasons. One is that the converted have memories of that past, which can cause temptations. Secondly is the converted still have sinful flesh.

For example, consider someone who used to smoke. They think about some activity which used to be linked with their smoking, and they're tempted to smoke. How could this not be considered an internal temptation?

I disagree. Our minds are quite capable of dwelling on any number of subjects which can leads us down wrong paths, without any help from Satan, and without having to read a book or watch a movie, or something similar.

You have said in the past that you do not believe that Christ was tempted from withing. But now you're saying that He could be tempted by His appetites and passions, which are also things that tempt from within. This is rather confusing. You're saying these are things that can tempt from within, but they didn't tempt Christ from within? Also, He was tempted by His appetites and passions, but not from within?

However, unlike us, Christ was born with a mind different from ours.

T: It depends upon whether we're talking about DNA or not, doesn't it? You're not suggesting one's DNA gets rewired, are you? EGW talks about how we won't have holy flesh this side of heaven, and that as long as we live we'll have battles to overcome. These are the battles that Christ fought and overcame, as He also did not have holy flesh.

R:I don’t know how these things work. But EGW says that these hereditary traits/tendencies can be transformed:

Natural and hereditary traits of character will be transformed. The indwelling of His spirit will enable them to reveal Christ's likeness. {5MR 132.3}

I said, “I don't believe that the Christian, like the unconverted, can be tempted purely from within, without an external stimulus.”
Another way of saying this would be, “I don’t believe that the Christian can be tempted purely from within, like the unconverted [can].”
I don’t see what is wrong here. As I see it, it wouldn’t make sense to say, “I don’t believe that the Christian, unlike the unconverted...”

T:Assuming this is what you mean, I disagree, for two reasons. One is that the converted have memories of that past, which can cause temptations. Secondly is the converted still have sinful flesh.

R:What I believe is that it’s Satan’s suggestions which make capital of these memories.

T:For example, consider someone who used to smoke. They think about some activity which used to be linked with their smoking, and they're tempted to smoke. How could this not be considered an internal temptation?

R:Once a sin is really overcome, it no longer constitutes an internal temptation.

T:I disagree. Our minds are quite capable of dwelling on any number of subjects which can leads us down wrong paths, without any help from Satan, and without having to read a book or watch a movie, or something similar.

R:You may think your mind is not being helped by Satan when this is far from being true.

T:You have said in the past that you do not believe that Christ was tempted from withing. But now you're saying that He could be tempted by His appetites and passions, which are also things that tempt from within. This is rather confusing. You're saying these are things that can tempt from within, but they didn't tempt Christ from within? Also, He was tempted by His appetites and passions, but not from within?

R:This depends on the definition of a “temptation from within.” If a temptation from within is something which tempts you because it’s part of you, then our appetites and passions, as much as our internal evils, constitute internal temptations.
Finally, a couple of things to ponder: 1) “evils without ... awaken evils within” (AA 518), that is, external stimuli trigger an internal response (at least in the case of believers); and 2) in all of Christ’s temptations related in the Bible, Satan was an active agent.

R: However, unlike us, Christ was born with a mind different from ours.
T: We are all born with different minds.

Natural and hereditary traits of character will be transformed. The indwelling of His spirit will enable them to reveal Christ's likeness. {5MR 132.3}
T: This is dealing with our behavior, it seems to me.

I'm not saying that Satan can't influence what we think about. I'm saying this isn't always the case.

For example, let's say I'm an ex-smoker, and I'm thinking about a friend I used to have. And that friend had a car. And the name of the car reminds me of another friend. And I used to bowl with that friend. And when I bowled, I used to smoke. And this causes a temptation. Satan wouldn't be involved in this. He can't read our mind. He'd have no way of knowing that my thinking of the first friend would result in my thinking about bowling.

Why do you think believers are only tempted by external stimuli?

R: However, unlike us, Christ was born with a mind different from ours.
T: We are all born with different minds.

R:I think you understood what I mean. While our minds are inclined to disobedience, His was inclined to obedience.

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don’t go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus." (A.T.Jones)

R:Natural and hereditary traits of character will be transformed. The indwelling of His spirit will enable them to reveal Christ's likeness. {5MR 132.3}

T: This is dealing with our behavior, it seems to me.

R:We inherit tendencies of character, which are tendencies of behavior. But these tendencies are changed:

“A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” {Mar 237.2}

“The change which must come to the natural, inherited, and cultivated tendencies of the human heart, is that change of which Jesus spoke when he said to Nicodemus, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” {PH080 43.1}

The behavior changes because the tendencies are changed.

From my experience, what I see is that when a sin was totally overcome, its memory can be dismissed without a temptation taking place. For instance, if someone completely overcame the smoking habit, memories won’t be a problem.

Those who would be victors should contemplate the cost of salvation, that they may be subdued by the love of Christ, that their strong human passions may be conquered, and their will brought into captivity to their Redeemer. The Christian is to realize that he is not his own, but that he has been bought with a price. His strongest temptations will come from within; for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart {BEcho, December 1, 1892 par. 4}

Appetite and passion must be brought under the control of the Holy Spirit. There is no end to the warfare this side of eternity. (Counsels to Teachers, p. 20)

But sometimes a sin remains for a time without being completely overcome (these are what EGW calls “inward evils” or “idols within”) – like my problem with soap operas, for instance, or the example you gave of the ex-smoker who still misses the pleasure of smoking. (I’m not sure now whether this needs an external stimulus.)

Besides that, I think our appetites and passions make us always vulnerable to temptations (but I think that, for the converted, a temptation involving this would need an external stimulus/suggestion).

T:Why do you think believers are only tempted by external stimuli?

R:Well, there are 3 sources of temptation: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Obviously the world and the devil are external stimuli.

Says Jesus, "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (1 John 2:16 quoted) In overcoming the world, then, Christ overcame "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,"--all things which are "not of the Father."

The world which Christ overcame was in His flesh. It was "the enmity." "the desires of the flesh." (E. J. Hibbard; The Two Law;emphasis original)

As to the "flesh," I would say it depends. If it refers to the carnal mind, then perhaps an external stimulus isn't necessary.

If it refers to the body, it seems to me that, for the Christian, an external stimulus is necessary.

I'm also basing myself on Christ's temptations related in the Bible - the devil was always present in all of them.

R: “A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” {Mar 237.2}... The behavior changes because the tendencies are changed.
T: You're saying the DNA changes? That seems to be what you're saying. I don't know how else to interpret what you're writing. If it's not the DNA, it would have to be behavior related, wouldn't it? What else is there?

R: For instance, if someone completely overcame the smoking habit, memories won’t be a problem.
T: By "not a problem," you mean, "not a temptation"? It's sounding to me like you're believing in holy flesh, or, perhaps better stated, your belief is that "sinful flesh" doesn't involve sinful things...

You're thinking is that if one is tempted to do some sin that has been overcome, then one hasn't completely overcome it?

R: Besides that, I think our appetites and passions make us always vulnerable to temptations (but I think that, for the converted, a temptation involving this would need an external stimulus/suggestion).
T: What's an example of an external stimulus, besides Satan or an agent of his? Why wouldn't a memory of this same stimulus cause a temptation?

R: As to the "flesh," I would say it depends. If it refers to the carnal mind, then perhaps an external stimulus isn't necessary.
T: We're not talking about the carnal mind. Christ didn't take a carnal mind. We're just talking about what Christ assumed.

R: I'm also basing myself on Christ's temptations related in the Bible - the devil was always present in all of them.
T: We go could at this from the other direction just as well. That is, Christ was tempted in all points as we are. How are we tempted? Only by the devil? If any of our temptations do not involve the devil, then not all of Christ's temptations involved the devil.

R: “A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” {Mar 237.2}... The behavior changes because the tendencies are changed.
T: You're saying the DNA changes? That seems to be what you're saying. I don't know how else to interpret what you're writing. If it's not the DNA, it would have to be behavior related, wouldn't it? What else is there?

R:Tom,
If we don’t even know how tendencies are transmitted, how can we know how they are changed?

However, EGW says that they can be changed. As I said, if we are born with defective neural pathways, neural pathways can be rerouted.

It doesn’t seem to me that character tendencies are transmitted through the DNA. As I’ve pointed out in previous discussions, if this was the case, Adam could never have transmitted sinful tendencies to his children, since he transmitted to them acquired tendencies, not inherited tendencies.

R: For instance, if someone completely overcame the smoking habit, memories won’t be a problem.
T: By "not a problem," you mean, "not a temptation"? It's sounding to me like you're believing in holy flesh, or, perhaps better stated, your belief is that "sinful flesh" doesn't involve sinful things...

R:I know many people who completely overcame a habit and who don’t consider it a temptation any longer. For instance, I used to like alcoholic beverages, meat, dancing. I remember the pleasurable sensations of drinking beer, or of eating fried fish, or of dancing. However, they don’t constitute a temptation to me any longer. I’m not “strongly motivated” to do any of these things.

T:You're thinking is that if one is tempted to do some sin that has been overcome, then one hasn't completely overcome it?

R:From my experience, I would say yes. Despite my resolution to not do it, I was “strongly motivated” to watch soap operas until I really overcame the habit. You should remember that our appetites and passions do not constitute sins in themselves, and that they can’t be “overcome”; they should be controlled. However, the wrong use of these passions constitutes sin and must be overcome. For instance, would you say that a pedophile who is “strongly motivated” to repeat his former behavior has really overcome his habit?

R: Besides that, I think our appetites and passions make us always vulnerable to temptations (but I think that, for the converted, a temptation involving this would need an external stimulus/suggestion).

T: What's an example of an external stimulus, besides Satan or an agent of his? Why wouldn't a memory of this same stimulus cause a temptation?

R:Because, as I said, a memory can be repelled; this is not always true of an external stimulus. Joseph comes to mind.

R: As to the "flesh," I would say it depends. If it refers to the carnal mind, then perhaps an external stimulus isn't necessary.
T: We're not talking about the carnal mind. Christ didn't take a carnal mind. We're just talking about what Christ assumed.

R:Yes, Christ didn’t have “inward evils,” “idols within” to overcome; we do, even being Christians, because transformation of nature is a gradual process.

R: I'm also basing myself on Christ's temptations related in the Bible - the devil was always present in all of them.

T: We go could at this from the other direction just as well. That is, Christ was tempted in all points as we are. How are we tempted? Only by the devil? If any of our temptations do not involve the devil, then not all of Christ's temptations involved the devil.

R:First, Christ didn’t even have the memory of past sins to tempt Him.

Second, there is no temptation of Christ related in the Bible which doesn’t involve the devil – even those which involved His thoughts.

And third, as I said in my post #128320, being tempted from within doesn’t necessarily exclude an external stimulus.

Arnold,
I was missing your contributions in these discussions.

T: You're saying the DNA changes? That seems to be what you're saying. I don't know how else to interpret what you're writing. If it's not the DNA, it would have to be behavior related, wouldn't it? What else is there?
R: Tom,
If we don’t even know how tendencies are transmitted, how can we know how they are changed?
T: We know how they're transmitted. Why do you think we don't? The behavior tendencies we have are changed as we develop new habits.

We develop the neural pathways by our habits.

R: I know many people who completely overcame a habit and who don’t consider it a temptation any longer. For instance, I used to like alcoholic beverages, meat, dancing. I remember the pleasurable sensations of drinking beer, or of eating fried fish, or of dancing. However, they don’t constitute a temptation to me any longer. I’m not “strongly motivated” to do any of these things.
T: Sure, that can happen, but is it necessary? That is, if one always steadfastly refused to participate in some type of behavior, even though one is tempted to do that behavior, does that mean the sin hasn't been overcome? To overcome a sin means you can't be tempted to do it?

R: Besides that, I think our appetites and passions make us always vulnerable to temptations (but I think that, for the converted, a temptation involving this would need an external stimulus/suggestion).
T: What's an example of an external stimulus, besides Satan or an agent of his? Why wouldn't a memory of this same stimulus cause a temptation?
R: Because, as I said, a memory can be repelled; this is not always true of an external stimulus. Joseph comes to mind.
T: I asked for an example of an external stimulus, besides Satan or an agent of his. I asked why a memory of this same stimulus wouldn't cause a temptation. I don't see how your response addresses either of these questions.

T: We're not talking about the carnal mind. Christ didn't take a carnal mind. We're just talking about what Christ assumed.
R: Yes, Christ didn’t have “inward evils,” “idols within” to overcome; we do, even being Christians, because transformation of nature is a gradual process.
T: Why does this matter to our discussion?

R: First, Christ didn’t even have the memory of past sins to tempt Him.
T: We are tempted by having sinful flesh, and by having committed sin. Christ assumed our sinful nature, and bore our sin. He had the whole package

R: Second, there is no temptation of Christ related in the Bible which doesn’t involve the devil – even those which involved His thoughts.
T: By "the devil" are you including people? If you're not including people, this isn't a true statement. Also, Christ's temptations on the cross involved his thoughts, as the psalms, for example, make clear. It doesn't say that Satan was involved in all of these thoughts. To name just one psalm, consider psalm 22.

R: And third, as I said in my post #128320, being tempted from within doesn’t necessarily exclude an external stimulus.
T: If a temptation from within includes temptations which involve external stimuli, than all temptations are temptations from within.

R: Tom,
If we don’t even know how tendencies are transmitted, how can we know how they are changed?
T: We know how they're transmitted. Why do you think we don't? The behavior tendencies we have are changed as we develop new habits.

?
What proof is there that they are transmitted through the DNA, as you believe? None whatsoever.
Cultivated tendencies cannot alter the DNA, yet cultivated tendencies are transmitted to children. How do you explain that?

T:We develop the neural pathways by our habits.

R:Sure. Some of them. But there are innate and acquired neural pathways. Some pathways are already developed at birth.

T: Sure, that can happen, but is it necessary? That is, if one always steadfastly refused to participate in some type of behavior, even though one is tempted to do that behavior, does that mean the sin hasn't been overcome? To overcome a sin means you can't be tempted to do it?

R:If someone is tempted to follow a sinful tendency, it’s because that sinful tendency wasn’t yet completely changed.

R:This is not uncommon in the Christian’s life. However, if you remain forever in this condition in relation to the same sin, you are in slavery, not freedom. Like in my problem with soap operas. Loving something and being unable to do it is torment. Besides, sooner or later you end up falling into that sin, since it’s a weak point. This could never be called victory.

In this freedom there is no trace of bondage. It is perfect liberty. It is liberty of soul, liberty of thought, as well as liberty of action. It is not that we are simply given the ability to keep the law, but we are given the mind that finds delight in doing it. It is not that we comply with the law because we see no other way of escape from punishment; that would be galling bondage. It is from such bondage that God's covenant releases us. No; the promise of God, when accepted, puts the mind of the Spirit into us, so that we find the highest pleasure in obedience to all the precepts of God's Word. The soul is as free as a bird soaring above the mountain-tops. It is the glorious liberty of the children of God, who have the full range of "the breadth, and length, and depth, and height" of God's universe. It is the liberty of those who do not have to be watched, but who can be trusted anywhere, since their every step is but the movement of God's own holy law. Why be content with bondage, when such limitless freedom is yours? The prison doors are open; walk out into God's freedom. (The Glad Tidings)

R:An example of an external stimulus: something you see or hear (intentionally or not). A memory of this same stimulus can cause a temptation - the temptation to continue thinking about it. If you continue thinking about it, you have another temptation: the temptation to do it. So, with the memory, you can stop with the first temptation - the temptation to continue thinking about it. With the external stimulus, you don't always have the option to repel it instantly - like in the case of Joseph. So you are tempted to do it.

T: We're not talking about the carnal mind. Christ didn't take a carnal mind. We're just talking about what Christ assumed.
R: Yes, Christ didn’t have “inward evils,” “idols within” to overcome; we do, even being Christians, because transformation of nature is a gradual process.
T: Why does this matter to our discussion?

R:Because you insist that Christ must have assumed everything we must fight against.

R: First, Christ didn’t even have the memory of past sins to tempt Him.
T: We are tempted by having sinful flesh, and by having committed sin. Christ assumed our sinful nature, and bore our sin. He had the whole package

R:This is not true and never will be. Bearing the guilt of our sins and being tempted by the memory of past sins are two things so far apart from each other as the east and the west.

R: Second, there is no temptation of Christ related in the Bible which doesn’t involve the devil – even those which involved His thoughts.
T: By "the devil" are you including people? If you're not including people, this isn't a true statement. Also, Christ's temptations on the cross involved his thoughts, as the psalms, for example, make clear. It doesn't say that Satan was involved in all of these thoughts. To name just one psalm, consider psalm 22.

When people mocked Christ, they were being inspired by Satan. Besides, Satan took the words of people and suggested thoughts to Christ’s mind.

R: And third, as I said in my post #128320, being tempted from within doesn’t necessarily exclude an external stimulus.
T: If a temptation from within includes temptations which involve external stimuli, than all temptations are temptations from within.

R:“Temptation from within” isn’t a term clearly defined, however, it seems to me, as I said previously, that temptations from without are those based in the world and the devil, and temptations from within are those based in the flesh, for the flesh is part of what you are. “Flesh” here might refer either to the body or to the carnal mind. Christ’s temptations in this respect were based in His body (appetites and passions), but not in a carnal mind.

"Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome. Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ he lived a sinless life. Now by his divinity he lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by his humanity he reaches us."

This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness. (R&H 10/2/00)

R: Cultivated tendencies cannot alter the DNA, yet cultivated tendencies are transmitted to children. How do you explain that?
T: Cultivated tendencies are transmitted either by DNA, through the womb, or by the influence (example) of parents upon their children.

T: We develop the neural pathways by our habits.
R: Sure. Some of them. But there are innate and acquired neural pathways. Some pathways are already developed at birth.
T: What's a specific example of something your thinking of? (Specific would be "sucking one's thumb" as opposed to "being selfish," which isn't specific).

R: If someone is tempted to follow a sinful tendency, it’s because that sinful tendency wasn’t yet completely changed.
T: This could be genetic though, in the DNA. This doesn't change until translation.

However, while "loving" something, and wanting to do it, but not doing so because one is afraid of the consequences could hardly be called "victory," I don't see how this would preclude a person who had given up smoking from having a memory which triggers a temptation to smoke.

T: This is what I was saying. What were you disagreeing with?

R: Yes, Christ didn’t have “inward evils,” “idols within” to overcome; we do, even being Christians, because transformation of nature is a gradual process.
T: Why does this matter to our discussion?
R: Because you insist that Christ must have assumed everything we must fight against.
T: He bore our sins and took our sinful nature. What's left out?

R: This is not true and never will be. Bearing the guilt of our sins and being tempted by the memory of past sins are two things so far apart from each other as the east and the west.
T: Scripture doesn't say that Christ "bore the guilt of our sins" but that Christ "bore our sins." Of course, bearing our sins involves bearing the guilt of our sins, but that's not all. For example, EGW writes that what made Christ's temptations in the dessert so difficult is that He was bearing our sins.

By saying that, "there is no temptation of Christ related in the Bible which doesn’t involve the devil" you're not only including people, but thoughts that Christ had. Well, if the devil includes people and thoughts, I can't disagree that all temptations that Christ had in Scripture involved the devil, as how could this be disproved? I'd have to find some temptation Christ had that didn't involve His thoughts.

R: “Temptation from within” isn’t a term clearly defined, however, it seems to me, as I said previously, that temptations from without are those based in the world and the devil, and temptations from within are those based in the flesh, for the flesh is part of what you are. “Flesh” here might refer either to the body or to the carnal mind. Christ’s temptations in this respect were based in His body (appetites and passions), but not in a carnal mind.
T: I don't think anybody thought in these terms in the 19th century. That is, I can't think of anyone who thought of the "flesh" as including the carnal mind. Indeed, I've already quoted to you from A. T. Jones that they did NOT think that way.

Cultivated tendencies are transmitted either by DNA, through the womb, or by the influence (example) of parents upon their children.

The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family. {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}

R: Cultivated tendencies cannot alter the DNA, yet cultivated tendencies are transmitted to children. How do you explain that?

T: Cultivated tendencies are transmitted either by DNA, through the womb, or by the influence (example) of parents upon their children.

R:The context makes clear that the passage isn’t speaking of the womb or of influence. So, again, if cultivated tendencies cannot alter the DNA, how could they be transmitted through the DNA?

T: We develop the neural pathways by our habits.

R: Sure. Some of them. But there are innate and acquired neural pathways. Some pathways are already developed at birth.

T: What's a specific example of something your thinking of? (Specific would be "sucking one's thumb" as opposed to "being selfish," which isn't specific).

R:All instincts, but let’s speak about the need to suckle. On thinking about this, I realized that people are born with this instinct, but it naturally ceases to exist later in life.

R: If someone is tempted to follow a sinful tendency, it’s because that sinful tendency wasn’t yet completely changed.

T: This could be genetic though, in the DNA. This doesn't change until translation.

R:It must change. The neural pathway ceases to be used, just like in the case of any habit acquired later in life.

There is no difference between inherited and cultivated tendencies.

Memories about both will remain. The possibility of reviving the habit will remain for both.

T:
However, while "loving" something, and wanting to do it, but not doing so because one is afraid of the consequences could hardly be called "victory," I don't see how this would preclude a person who had given up smoking from having a memory which triggers a temptation to smoke.

R:It doesn’t preclude the occurrence of a temptation triggered by a memory, but when you have really overcome the tendency, the memory of it will no longer fascinate you.

You will be able to see that the pleasure offered by the temptation brings suffering in its train.

R: Yes, Christ didn’t have “inward evils,” “idols within” to overcome; we do, even being Christians, because transformation of nature is a gradual process.
T: Why does this matter to our discussion?
R: Because you insist that Christ must have assumed everything we must fight against.
T: He bore our sins and took our sinful nature. What's left out?

“Inward evils” and “idols within.”

R: This is not true and never will be. Bearing the guilt of our sins and being tempted by the memory of past sins are two things so far apart from each other as the east and the west.

T: Scripture doesn't say that Christ "bore the guilt of our sins" but that Christ "bore our sins." Of course, bearing our sins involves bearing the guilt of our sins, but that's not all. For example, EGW writes that what made Christ's temptations in the dessert so difficult is that He was bearing our sins.

R:The anguish for bearing the guilt of our sins made the temptations even worse.

But Christ’s temptations in the desert were His temptations, not ours.

Christ wasn’t tempted to watch soap operas, but He knows what it is to be strongly motivated to do something which is against God’s will, so He could understand my struggle.

It is my experience that in nine cases out of ten, when men consider those temptations in the fourth chapter of Matthew, which are typical of all his temptations, they fail to recognize their likeness to our own. They make him tempted in all points like as we are not, rather than like as we are. (Fifield; 1897 GCB, Sermon #1)

T:By saying that, "there is no temptation of Christ related in the Bible which doesn’t involve the devil" you're not only including people, but thoughts that Christ had. Well, if the devil includes people and thoughts, I can't disagree that all temptations that Christ had in Scripture involved the devil, as how could this be disproved? I'd have to find some temptation Christ had that didn't involve His thoughts.

R:If people are being Satan’s instruments, like the serpent or Eve, or people around the cross, they are just speaking Satan’s words.

As to thoughts, I’m referring to the thoughts suggested by Satan in the Gethsemane and on the cross, which Ellen White describes in detail.

R: “Temptation from within” isn’t a term clearly defined, however, it seems to me, as I said previously, that temptations from without are those based in the world and the devil, and temptations from within are those based in the flesh, for the flesh is part of what you are. “Flesh” here might refer either to the body or to the carnal mind. Christ’s temptations in this respect were based in His body (appetites and passions), but not in a carnal mind.

T: I don't think anybody thought in these terms in the 19th century. That is, I can't think of anyone who thought of the "flesh" as including the carnal mind. Indeed, I've already quoted to you from A. T. Jones that they did NOT think that way.

R:Yes, I know. But I believe that this position can be defended by both the Bible and EGW. In Romans 8:1, 4, 5, 12, 13; 2 Cor. 10:3, 2 Pet. 2:10, the expression “according to the flesh” means “according to the carnal mind”.

Was that holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary born in sinful flesh, and did that flesh have the same evil tendencies to contend with that our does?

Really (it is) the work of the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men whom He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other.

(Christ) established the will of God in the flesh, and established the fact that God's will may be done in any human, sinful flesh.

(M)en like to conceal the fault of their ancestors, and if there be a blot anywhere in the family, that does not appear when the family record is written. Jesus Christ was 'born of the seed of David, according to the flesh,' and in the seed of David was Manasseh, who filled Jerusalem with innocent blood from one end to the other. In that line was Judah the adulterer, and the child born of incest, and likewise the harlot Rahab. All of that class who were set forth as the ancestors of Christ show that Jesus was not ashamed to call sinful men His brethren.(April 12th or 16th, 1901; GC session)

It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. (Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 707,708)

Therefore DNA also can not be related to the causes of sin. Popular media likes to play the game "overstate the importance of DNA". There is no good reason to follow that lead.

The flesh and the mind are two different things. The flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God. This precludes it from including the mind, because if the mind were included, this statement would be false.

The nature of man is threefold, and the training enjoined by Solomon comprehends the right development of the physical, intellectual, and moral powers. {CG 39.1}

First, an interesting observation: The topic is about "Christ's assumed human nature" and R asked about "man's fallen nature" but the response is about "flesh." I often see this "bait and switch" in discussions on this topic.

"Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome. Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ he lived a sinless life. Now by his divinity he lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by his humanity he reaches us."

This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness.(Haskell; R&H 10/2/00)

Let's talk about "nature" but including its use in inspired writings - not limited to the narrow postlaps definition.

Quote:
The nature of man is threefold, and the training enjoined by Solomon comprehends the right development of the physical, intellectual, and moral powers. {CG 39.1}

In the way the SOP speaks of man's nature, the mind is involved in at least 2 of the 3 aspects.

When Jesus assumed fallen human nature, did He also assume the fallen intellect and the fallen morality? Since we surely have fallen intellects and morals, does God propose to change these aspects of our nature?

I think she's talking about influence. DNA wouldn't make sense, right?

I was asking for an example of a specific sinful neural pathway which one is born with rather then developing by means of a habit.

Neural pathway is developed. It's not DNA.

T: He bore our sins and took our sinful nature. What's left out?
R: “Inward evils” and “idols within.”
T: That's "sin" isn't it? That is, when we're told that Christ bore the sin of the world, isn't this included? Or some sins are left out?

He could understand the struggle because He bore your sin in your nature, and was tempted as you are tempted.

What she is explaining in the passage is precisely the opposite of what you are saying. She is pointing out that the word "flesh" in the Bible includes more than just the body, because the body of itself would not be able to act contrary to the will of God. She is saying that "flesh" is the same as "carnal lusts," and "carnal lusts" have to do with the mind, not the body. That's why the way to crucify the flesh is not by inflicting pain to the body, but by expelling the corrupt thought.

-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}

The "flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God" means that the "lower passions" which "have their seat in the body" must be controlled by the mind. I don't see how you can get from this that the flesh incorporates more than just the body. She says that it has its "seat in the body." If anything, it would incorporate less than just the body.

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.

Christ had the same DNA we have, the result of 6,000 years of sin, the same heredity that we share, the results of which are shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors.

This mind is part and parcel of our sinful nature - and of course it's that mind - not our body - which leads us to sin.

The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked. {TDG 34.3}

T:I think she's talking about influence. DNA wouldn't make sense, right?

R:To me it’s obvious she is talking about sinful tendencies passed through birth inheritance from Adam to his offspring.

Is it your contention that Adam transmitted sinful tendencies to his children only through his example?

T:I was asking for an example of a specific sinful neural pathway which one is born with rather then developing by means of a habit.

R:“The great hereditary and cultivated tendency to evil with Judas was covetousness. And by practice this became a habit which he carried into all his trading” (MS 28, 1897).

Neural pathway is developed. It's not DNA.

???
What you are affirming does not make sense. I’ve just affirmed that there are innate neural pathways. A classic example is instincts. And, of course, when you inherit a sinful tendency, the kind of behavior correspondent to it is instinctive to you.

T: He bore our sins and took our sinful nature. What's left out?
R: “Inward evils” and “idols within.”
T: That's "sin" isn't it? That is, when we're told that Christ bore the sin of the world, isn't this included? Or some sins are left out?

R:Again, bearing the guilt of our sins is by no means the same as being tempted by our temptations. Christ was never tempted to smoke a cigarette or to use drugs, but He knows the struggle of the cigarette smoker and of the drug addict, because He knew the maximum strength of temptation. Until I experienced suffering for the first time, I had no idea about what it really was, but after my first experience with suffering, I suddenly became familiar with the suffering of all people and could understand them. The same is true about temptation. If you have a weakness and know the pull of temptation, you know the struggle of others.

As certainly as our sins, when upon us, are real sins to us, so certainly, when these sins were laid upon Him, they became real sins to Him. As certainly as guilt attaches to these sins and to us because of them, when they are upon us so certainly this guilt attached to these same sins of ours and to Him because of them, when they were laid upon Him.

As the sense of condemnation and discouragement of our sins was real to us when these sins of ours were upon us, so certainly this same sense of condemnation and discouragement because of the guilt of these sins was realized by Him when these sins of ours were laid upon Him.

Thus the guilt, the condemnation, the discouragement of the knowledge of sin were His—were a fact in His conscious experience—as really as they were ever such in the life of any sinner that was ever on earth. And this awful truth brings to every sinful soul in the world the glorious truth that "the righteousness of God," and the rest, the peace, and the joy, of that righteousness, are a fact in the conscious experience of the believer in Jesus in this world, as really as they are in the life of any saint who was ever in heaven.

He who knew the height of the righteousness of God, acquired also the knowledge of the depth of the sins of men. He knows the awfulness of the depths of the sins of men, as well as He knows the glory of the heights of the righteousness of God....

Therefore, when of Himself He said, "I can of Mine own self do nothing," this makes it certain forever that in the flesh,—because of our infirmities which He took; because of our sinfulness, hereditary and actual, which was laid upon Him and imparted to Him—He was of Himself in that flesh exactly as is the man who, in the infirmity of the flesh, is laden with sins, actual and hereditary, and who is without God. And standing thus weak, laden with sins and helpless as we are, in divine faith He exclaimed, "I will put My trust in Him." Hebrews 2:13. (The Consecrated Way To Christ Perfection, A. T. Jones)

T:He could understand the struggle because He bore your sin in your nature, and was tempted as you are tempted.

R:He didn’t have evil desires as I have. The desire I had of watching soap operas is evil in itself, but Christ had no evil desire. The impression I get is that post-lapsarians think that the more evil the desire, the stronger the temptation.

We are told to crucify the flesh. Where should the focus be? She is clear: NOT the body. Rather, it should be in resisting the temptation to sin and expelling the corrupt thought. Both are centered on the mind, not the body.

The corrupt thought is clearly and obviously a matter of the mind. I trust that none will dispute that.

How about the "temptation to sin"? When Satan tempts us, will he achieve his goal of corruption if he merely succeeds in controlling our body to act a certain way? No. Physical action, of itself, is not sin. IOW, "the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God."

In order to fall into temptation in a way that corrupts, the mind must be enlisted on the side of Satan. Control of the body is not enough. Satan must gain control of the mind. In short, our will must contradict the will of God. The body, of itself, cannot do this. Sin is a matter of the mind.

When EGW gave details on how to crucify the "flesh," it was centered on the mind.

Where does he start the temptation? In the flesh. Satan reaches the mind through the flesh; God reaches the flesh through the mind. Satan controls the mind through the flesh. Through this means—through the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, the pride of life, and through ambition for the world and the honor and respect of men—through these things Satan draws upon us, upon our minds to get us to yield. Our minds respond and we cherish that thing. By this means his temptations assert their power. Then we have sinned. But until that drawing of our flesh is cherished, there is no sin. There is temptation, but not sin. Every man is tempted when he is drawn away thus and enticed, and when lust has conceived, when that desire is cherished, then it brings forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death.

Some sinful desire [with us] 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 yield to the power of temptation.

Thus you see that where the victory comes, where the battlefield is, is right upon the line between the flesh and the mind. The battle is fought in the realm of the thoughts. The battle against the flesh, I mean, is fought altogether and the victory won in the realm of the thoughts. Therefore, Jesus Christ came in just such flesh as ours but with a mind that held its integrity against every temptation, against every inducement to sin—a mind that never consented to sin—no, never in the least conceivable shadow of a thought. {GCB/GCDB , , p. 328.9}

"Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome. Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ he lived a sinless life. Now by his divinity he lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by his humanity he reaches us."

Then he commented: "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness.(R&H 10/2/00)

Nobody I am aware of who speaks of Christ's taking our sinful nature has the idea that this includes the mind. Can you cite even one person who has this idea?

I can see why you would be against the idea that Christ would take our sinful nature if you include His mind as part of sinful nature, but nobody else has this idea, certainly not Jones or Waggoner, or Ellen White, or Prescott, or any one else of that era; nor have I heard of any postlapsarians (or even prelapsarians) that have this idea.

Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 390 A.D.) taught that Jesus had a human body and soul but a divine mind. To simplify, Jesus was like us from the neck down and unlike us from the neck up.

Apollinaris’ contemporary, Gregory of Nazianzus, opposed his teachings concerning Jesus, writing,


Gregory points out that if Apollinaris is right, then in Jesus we have a Savior only from the neck down but not from the neck up. Then in Christ we have only the portraiture of humanity, only a likeness or a half Adam.

Way back in the forth century Gregory of Nazianus uttered something quite profound. The occasion was the Apollinarian controversy. The center of this controversy was the theory of Appolinarius that Jesus had a human body but a divine mind. This was not unlike saying that Jesus was like us from the neck down but not like us from the neck up.

So Gregory pointed out that “If anyone has put his trust in Him as a man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He [Jesus] has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united with His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.“

Gregory saw precisely the problem, not only of misguided teachers in his day, but in ours. Teachers are today presenting the humanity of Christ as partly like Adam’s and partly like ours. But since the Fall affected man in every aspect, we must have in Jesus a Savior who defeats sin in the same flesh as our own. The humanity that he takes must be wholly affected by the Fall, and the victory He wins over that disordered humanity must be just as complete.

...

There were some significant differences between Christ and us. He was God we are not. As God He had inherent rights to power as God. We do not. The value of His character is the character of the righteous God. Ours is not. We all have chosen to sin. He never did. Yet, the meaningful difference between His humanity and ours?

None.

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don’t go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus."

So you're thinking that LK would disagree with what A. T. Jones wrote?



I doubt this (that he would disagree with this). IIRC, you've said you've had contact with him. Perhaps you could ask him. I think he would agree with Jones.

R: To me it’s obvious she is talking about sinful tendencies passed through birth inheritance from Adam to his offspring.
T: She refers to Adam, but that's not the subject of her statement, right?

R: Is it your contention that Adam transmitted sinful tendencies to his children only through his example?
T: No. And similarly for parents today. Both cultivated and potential tendencies are passed from parent to their children, the former by influence and the latter by DNA.

We don't pass cultivated tendencies by our DNA, right? For example, your former infatuation with soaps isn't passed through your children my means of your DNA, is it?

T: Neural pathway is developed. It's not DNA.
R: ??? What you are affirming does not make sense. I’ve just affirmed that there are innate neural pathways. A classic example is instincts. And, of course, when you inherit a sinful tendency, the kind of behavior correspondent to it is instinctive to you.
T: What's an example of what you're talking about? You quoted covetousness in the case of Judas, but I don't know what you're thinking. My understanding, in regards to human behavior, is that current scientific thought is that very little is instinctive. Did you learn differently?

The suffering is a good example. If you lose a child, that could help you sympathize with someone else who lost a child, or other relative or friend. However, if one was only tempted on the basis of being tricked, I don't see how that would lead one to sympathize with others who are tempted more deeply than that.

...because of our sinfulness, hereditary and actual, which was laid upon Him and imparted to Him—He was of Himself in that flesh exactly as is the man who, in the infirmity of the flesh, is laden with sins, actual and hereditary, and who is without God....

R: He didn’t have evil desires as I have. The desire I had of watching soap operas is evil in itself, but Christ had no evil desire. The impression I get is that post-lapsarians think that the more evil the desire, the stronger the temptation.
T: The stronger the desire to do the thing being tempted, the strong the temptation. How evil the desire is isn't relevant. I don't think anyone thinks along the lines of what you're suggesting.

Is inheriting "sinful tendencies" at conception the same thing as acting them out in thought, word, or deed?

Are we guilty and condemned because we inherited them or because we act them out?

What if we experience rebirth, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and thereby refuse to act them out - are we guilty and condemned?

M: Is inheriting "sinful tendencies" at conception the same thing as acting them out in thought, word, or deed?

R: No.

M: Are we guilty and condemned because we inherited them or because we act them out?

R: What about the statement that "human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God" {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}?

Because his life was free from all taint of sin, and condemned all impurity, he was opposed both at home and abroad. {ST, August 6, 1896 par. 8}

He condemned all guile, all underhanded work of policy for supremacy, and every unholy practice. {TM 267.1}

They hated him because he condemned all guile, frowned upon every unholy practice, and rebuked their self-seeking policy and love of supremacy. {RH, February 26, 1895 par. 6}

While Christ taught the value of humility, and condemned all the ostentation and self-exaltation which characterized the Jewish religion, he also distinctly set forth the fact that his grace and love cherished in the heart will be revealed in the character. {RH, April 30, 1895 par. 2}

Our only safety is in clinging with unwavering faith to the word of God, and promptly and resolutely shunning whatever that word condemns, no matter how pleasing its appearance or how specious its pretenses. {ST, July 15, 1886 par. 15}

Christ . . . died for us. He does not treat us according to our desert. Although our sins have merited condemnation, He does not condemn us. {FLB 94.7}

If we have the love of Christ in our souls it will be a natural consequence for us to have all the other graces--joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; and "against such there is no law." The law of God does not condemn and hold in bondage those who have these graces, because they are obeying the requirements of the law of God. {HP 244.2}

In keeping God's commandments there is great reward, even in this life. Our conscience does not condemn us. Our hearts are not at enmity with God, but at peace with Him. {SD 45.4}

We must daily compare our character with the law of God, the great rule of righteousness; and if that does not condemn us, we may approach the throne of grace in faith. {RH, December 22, 1885 par. 1}

We are in need of Bible missionaries; those who have connected themselves with God, and who will examine themselves daily to see if there is not some defect in their character; those who will look into the great looking-glass, God's law, to see if it does not condemn some practice in which they are indulging. {ST, May 19, 1887 par. 6}

M: What if we experience rebirth, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and thereby refuse to act them out - are we guilty and condemned?

R: We are covered by Christ's righteousness.

M: Is inheriting "sinful tendencies" at conception the same thing as acting them out in thought, word, or deed?
R: No.
M: Do you have any quotes to support your answer?

M: Are we guilty and condemned because we inherited them or because we act them out?
R: What about the statement that "human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God" {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}?
M: God does not condemn what we are; instead, He condemns what we think, say, and do (if it is sinful).

Choices result in character, and character defines what we are. In judgment it is character that determines our eternal destiny - not sinful flesh.

M: What if we experience rebirth, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and thereby refuse to act them out - are we guilty and condemned?
R: We are covered by Christ's righteousness.
M: Please explain. Are you suggesting Christ's righteousness covers our sinful flesh nature and, for this reason, we are not guilty and condemned? And, if were not so, having sinful flesh would make us guilty and condemned and, for this reason, experiencing the fruits of Spirit and refusing to act out the unholy desires of sinful flesh would make no difference?

If the thoughts are wrong the feelings will be wrong, and the thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character. (5T 310)

The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts. (SC 57)

Any one act, either good or evil, does not form the character; but thoughts and feelings indulged prepare the way for acts and deeds of the same kind. (CG 199)

It is not through one act that the character is formed, but by a repetition of acts that habits are established and character confirmed. (ST 4-30-1894)

Character does not come by chance. It is not determined by one outburst of temper, one step in the wrong direction. It is the repetition of the act that causes it to become habit, and molds the character either for good or for evil. (CG 164)

A well-balanced character is formed by single acts well performed. One defect, cultivated instead of being overcome, makes the man imperfect, and closes against him the gate of the Holy City. (FLB 44)

Mental ability and genius are not character, for these are often possessed by those who have the very opposite of a good character. Reputation is not character. True character is a quality of the soul, revealing itself in the conduct. (CG 161)

Remember that they have inherited their parents' dispositions. You have now to meet in your children your own defects of character. {DG 207.3}

Character cannot be bought; it must be formed by stern efforts to resist temptation. The formation of a right character is the work of a lifetime, and is the outgrowth of prayerful meditation united with a grand purpose. The excellence of character that you possess must be the result of your own effort. {FE 87.2}

A noble, all-round character is not inherited. {COL 331.1}

But character is not inherited. {PP 223.1}

Grace is not inherited. A very bad father may have a godly son; a Christian father a profligate son. {TSB 45.2}

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}

But many have inherited traits of character that in no way represent the divine Model. There are many who have some defect of character received as a birthright, which they have not overcome, but have cherished as though it were fine gold, and brought with them into their religious experience. In many cases these traits are retained through the entire life. For a time no particular harm may be seen to result from them; but the leaven is at work, and when a favorable opportunity arrives, the evil manifests itself. {5T 418.1}

Manifest the meekness and gentleness of Christ in dealing with the wayward little ones. Always bear in mind that they have received their perversity as an inheritance from the father or mother. Then bear with the children who have inherited your own trait of character. {AH 174.2}

Even if the character, habits, and practices of parents have been cast in an inferior mold, if the lessons given them in childhood and youth have led to an unhappy development of character, they need not despair. The converting power of God can transform inherited and cultivated tendencies; for the religion of Jesus is uplifting. "Born again" means a transformation, a new birth in Christ Jesus. {AH 206.1}

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}

The harvest of life is character, and it is this that determines destiny, both for this life and for the life to come. {Ed 108.2}

The character formed in this world determines the destiny for eternity. {YI, August 17, 1899 par. 7}

Rosangela, thank you for answering my questions clearly and plainly. If you don't mind, I have a couple more. If sinful flesh and sinful character are one and the same thing, it follows, then, that what makes us guilty and condemned is something we inherited at conception, namely, sinful flesh/character. Thus, we are guilty and condemned the instant we are conceived, before we are born, before we begin cultivating character. If so, how does this differ from the false theory that we are conceived guilty and condemned based on Adam's sin?

A few more questions. Do we retain sinful flesh/character after we experience rebirth? Or, is it transformed and ceases tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus?

If we retain it, does it cease tempting us? If not, does the fact it continues to tempt us make us guilty and condemned?

Would you please explain why these different insights do not contradict one another. On the surface they seem contradictory.

If you have become estranged, and have failed to be Bible Christians, be converted, for the character you bear in probationary time will be the character you will have at the coming of Christ. If you would be a saint in heaven, you must first be a saint on earth. {13MR 81.3}

The traits of character you cherish in life will not be changed by death or by the resurrection. You will come up from the grave with the same disposition you manifested in your home and in society. Jesus does not change the character at His coming. The work of transformation must be done now. Our daily lives are determining our destiny. Defects of character must be repented of and overcome through the grace of Christ, and a symmetrical character must be formed while in this probationary state, that we may be fitted for the mansions above. {13MR 82.1}

But many have inherited traits of character that in no way represent the divine Model. There are many who have some defect of character received as a birthright, which they have not overcome, but have cherished as though it were fine gold, and brought with them into their religious experience. In many cases these traits are retained through the entire life. For a time no particular harm may be seen to result from them; but the leaven is at work, and when a favorable opportunity arrives, the evil manifests itself. {5T 418.1}

[In] order to be saved, they must have a new heart and a new spirit. The old, hereditary traits of character must be overcome. The natural desires of the soul must be changed. All deception, all falsifying, all evilspeaking, must be put away. The new life, which makes men and women Christlike, is to be lived. 36 {CCh 59.3}

The word of God often comes in collision with man's hereditary and cultivated traits of character and his habits of life. But the good-ground hearer, in receiving the word, accepts all its conditions and requirements. His habits, customs, and practices are brought into submission to God's word. In his view the commands of finite, erring man sink into insignificance beside the word of the infinite God. With the whole heart, with undivided purpose, he is seeking the life eternal, and at the cost of loss, persecution, or death itself, he will obey the truth. {COL 60.3}

Besetting sins must be battled with, and overcome. Objectionable traits of character, whether hereditary or cultivated, should be taken up separately, and compared with the great rule of righteousness; and in the light reflected from the word of God, they should be firmly resisted and overcome, through the strength of Christ. "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." [Hebrews 12:14.] {CE 113.1}

Characters are not formed in one mold. There is every phase of character received by children as an inheritance. The defects and the virtues in traits of character are thus revealed. Let every instructor take this into consideration. Hereditary and cultivated deformity of human character, as also beauty of character, will have to be met, and much grace cultivated in the instructor to know how to deal with the erring for their present and eternal good. {FE 277.1}

The world needs evidences of sincere Christianity. Professed Christianity may be seen everywhere; but when the power of God's grace is seen in our churches, the members will work the works of Christ. Natural and hereditary traits of character will be transformed. The indwelling of His Spirit will enable them to reveal Christ's likeness, and in proportion to the purity of their piety will be the success of their work. {AG 263.3}

Men may possess capabilities given them in trust of God, but if they are not humble men, daily converted men, as vessels of honor, they will do the greater harm because of their capabilities. If they are not learners of Christ Jesus, if they do not pray and keep their natural hereditary and cultivated tendencies under control, traits of character that God abhors will pervert the judgment of those who associate with them (Letter 31a, 1894). {4BC 1138.5}

God wants you to let Him manage you, that you may be a lovable Christian. The Lord would have the natural and hereditary traits of character come under the pruning knife. Look steadfastly unto Jesus, that you may catch His spirit and cherish the qualities of Christlike character. Then it will be recognized by all who have any connection with you, that you have learned of Christ His meekness, His affection, His tenderness, His sympathy. {TMK 218.2}

Rosangela, does God require us to repent of the character we inherited at conception? Please provide quotes. Thank you.

Arnold, no problem, but hopefully you can eventually come up with quotes to support the idea that we are conceived with a sinful character and are therefore guilty and condemned in the sight of God.

Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God. {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}

Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man's behalf. . . . Christ's perfect example and the grace of God are given him to enable him to train his sons and daughters to be sons and daughters of God. It is by teaching them, line upon line, precept upon precept, how to give the heart and will up to Christ that Satan's power is broken. {CG 475.3}

We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression. Jesus regained heaven for man by bearing the test that Adam failed to endure; for He obeyed the law perfectly, and all who have a right conception of the plan of redemption will see that they cannot be saved while in transgression of God's holy precepts. They must cease to transgress the law and lay hold on the promises of God that are available for us through the merits of Christ. {FW 88.3}

Hating sin with a perfect hatred, He yet gathered to His soul the sins of the whole world. Guiltless, He bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent, yet offering Himself as a substitute for the transgressor. The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer. The evil thoughts, the evil words, the evil deeds of every son and daughter of Adam, called for retribution upon Himself; for He had become man's substitute. Though the guilt of sin was not His, His spirit was torn and bruised by the transgressions of men, and He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. {AG 172.3}

In the act of dying, Christ was destroying him who had the power of death. He carried out the plan, finished the work which from Adam's fall He had covenanted to undertake. By dying for the guilt of a sinful world, He reinstated fallen man, on condition of obedience to God's commandments, in the position from which he had fallen in consequence of disobedience. And when He broke the fetters of the tomb and rose triumphant from the dead He answered the question, "If a man die, shall he live again?" (Job 14:14). Christ made it possible that every child of Adam might, through a life of obedience, overcome sin and rise also from the grave to his heritage of immortality purchased by the blood of Christ. {HP 44.3}

We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God’s estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us. But the sinless One has taken our place; though undeserving, He has borne our iniquity. “If we confess our sins,” God “is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. Glorious truth!—just to His own law, and yet the Justifier of all that believe in Jesus. “Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger forever, because He delighteth in mercy.” Micah 7:18. {Pr 299.1}

God places every action in the scale. What a scene it will be! What impressions will be made regarding the holy character of God and the terrible enormity of sin, when the judgment, based on the law, is carried forward in the presence of all the worlds. Then before the mind of the unrepentant sinner there will be opened all the sins that he has committed, and he will see and understand the aggregate of sin and his own guilt. {7BC 953.2}

As the Holy One upon the throne slowly turned the leaves of the ledger, and His eyes rested for a moment upon individuals, His glance seemed to burn into their very souls, and at the same moment every word and action of their lives passed before their minds as clearly as though traced before their vision in letters of fire. Trembling seized them, and their faces turned pale. Their first appearance when around the throne was that of careless indifference. But how changed their appearance now! The feeling of security is gone, and in its place is a nameless terror. A dread is upon every soul, lest he shall be found among those who are wanting. Every eye is riveted upon the face of the One upon the throne; and as His solemn, searching eye sweeps over that company, there is a quaking of heart; for they are self-condemned without one word being uttered. In anguish of soul each declares his own guilt and with terrible vividness sees that by sinning he has thrown away the precious boon of eternal life. {4T 385.2}

If for some crime that you had committed you were incarcerated within prison walls, with the sentence of death passed upon you, and a friend should come to you and say, "I will take your place, and you may go free," would not your heart be filled with gratitude for such unselfish love? Christ has done infinitely more than this for us. We were lost; the sentence of death had been passed upon us; and Christ died for us, and thus set us free. He said, "I will take upon Myself the guilt of the sinner, that he may have another trial. I will put within his reach power that will enable him to overcome in the struggle with evil." {HP 42.2}

The Holy Spirit is not only to sanctify but to convict. No one can repent of his sins until he is convicted of his guilt. How necessary, then, it is that we should have the Holy Spirit with us we labor to reach fallen souls. Our human abilities will be exercised in vain unless they are united with this heavenly agency. {RH, July 16, 1895 par. 1}

We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by his perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression. Jesus regained heaven for man by bearing the test that Adam failed to endure; for he obeyed the law perfectly, and all who have a right conception of the plan of redemption will see that they cannot be saved while in transgression of God's holy precepts. They must cease to transgress the law, and lay hold on the promises of God that are available for us through the merits of Christ. {ST, May 19, 1890 par. 8}

I already posted a quote showing that we receive guilt from Adam, along with the sentence of death. Bad stuff.


So, if we are conceived with a depraved human nature, we are justly condemned.

Do you believe we are conceived with a depraved nature?

The Protestant churches, having received doctrines that the Word of God condemns, will bring these to the front and force them upon the consciences of the people, just as the papal authorities urged their dogmas upon the advocates of truth in Luther’s time. The same battle is again to be fought, and every soul will be called upon to decide upon which side of the controversy he or she will be found. {CTr 323.5}

While God condemns a mere round of ceremonies, without the spirit of worship, He looks with great pleasure upon those who love Him, bowing morning and evening to seek pardon for sins committed, and to present their requests for needed blessings. {FLB 196.5}

Do not excuse your defects of character, but in the grace of Christ overcome them. Wrestle with the evil passions which the Word of God condemns; for in yielding to them, you abase yourself. Repent of sin while Mercy's sweet voice invites you; for it is the first step in the noblest work you can do. Strive for the mastery with all the powers God hath given you. {ML 104.5}

Truth is efficient only as it is carried out in practical life. If the Word of God condemns some habit you have indulged, a feeling you have cherished, a spirit you have manifested, turn not from the Word of God, but turn away from the evil of your doings, and let Jesus cleanse and sanctify your heart. Confess your faults, and forsake them. {OHC 37.4}

Here's one that MM already posted:

The old ways, the hereditary tendencies, the former habits, must be given up; for grace is not inherited. {Mar 237}

Guilt is not inherited.

Sin is not inherited. Where there is no sin there is no guilt.

Finally, no, we are very much unlike prefall Adam when we are conceived.

I believe at conception we inherit sinful traits and tendencies as opposed to saying we inherit a character. The many quotes I posted above make it clear character is the result of individual hard work and repetitious choices. "Character is not inherited." "Character is not transferable."

I believe at conception we inherit sinful traits and tendencies as opposed to saying we inherit a character. The many quotes I posted above make it clear character is the result of individual hard work and repetitious choices. "Character is not inherited."

From PP 223:
An upright character is of greater worth than the gold of Ophir. Without it none can rise to an honorable eminence. But character is not inherited. It cannot be bought. Moral excellence and fine mental qualities are not the result of accident. The most precious gifts are of no value unless they are improved. The formation of a noble character is the work of a lifetime and must be the result of diligent and persevering effort. God gives opportunities; success depends upon the use made of them.

I say that we receive from Adam guilt and the sentence of death. You disagree with that. Right?

So you believe a newborn has neither sin nor guilt. Right?

When Adam was created, he was made in God's image. I'm pretty sure we all agree that it was an image of love. When Adam sinned, selfishness took the place of love. So instead of having love as the ruling principle, Adam was ruled by self. Are you saying that we are born ruled by self?

Character is the sum total of your character traits.

"There is every phase of character received by children as an inheritance. The defects and the virtues in traits of character are thus revealed. Let every instructor take this into consideration. Hereditary and cultivated deformity of human character, as also beauty of character, will have to be met, and much grace cultivated in the instructor to know how to deal with the erring for their present and eternal good." {FE 277.1}

"God expects every one who claims to be his child to reveal to the world not their natural, hereditary, sinful character, but a representation of the character of Christ." {HM, December 1, 1894 par. 4}

What do you make of the quotes which say that Adam was created with a character?

The Lord placed [Adam] upon probation, that he might form a character of steadfast integrity for his own happiness and for the glory of his Creator. {RH, February 24, 1874 par. 9}

You cannot bring up your children as you should without divine help; for the fallen nature of Adam always strives for the mastery. {RH, October 25, 1892 par. 12}

In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in character, but in form and feature. {GC 644.3}

Concerning the creation of Adam it is said, "In the likeness of God made He him;" but man, after the Fall, "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." While Adam was created sinless, in the likeness of God, Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents. {PP 80.1}

Adam was to be tested, to see whether he would be obedient or disobedient. Had he stood the test, his thoughts would have been as the thoughts of God. His character would have been moulded after the similitude of the divine character. {ST, May 29, 1901 par. 1}

This is similar to the COL quote, which Rosangela has addressed.

EGW tells us that character is the thoughts and feelings combined.

You seem to be saying that we are born with no character. Hence, either thoughts or feelings are missing at birth. Right?

My most recent comments and responses above should serve to address your question. If they don't, please tell me, and I will be happy to elaborate.

Where there is no sin there is no guilt. Guilt is incurred by sinning.

Ellen, as you know, wrote both of the above. In light of everything she wrote about it (see copious quotes posted earlier), I believe we receive hardware and software from our parents and grandparents, dating all the way back to Adam, that results in us sinning naturally, instinctively from the moment we are consciously capable of reacting and responding to inside and outside stimuli (which begins in the womb), and we thereby incur guilt, condemnation, and the death sentence.

Do you agree?

I do not believe guilt is inherited. Guilt is the direct result of sinning. Parents cannot sin and incur guilt and bequeath it to their children. Instead, what happens is children inherit the traits and tendencies their parents cultivated and strengthened, and the children in turn are predisposed and more likely to repeat the same types of sins and thereby incur guilt.

Do you agree?

Please elaborate. Do you believe that people are born with thoughts and feelings?

Since the topic is about Jesus, let's pull it back a bit. Since Jesus did not sin, can we say that He had no guilt?

I believe that Jesus had the guilt of the world placed upon Him, not because He sinned, but by a different mechanism.

M: Guilt is not inherited.

A: I say that we receive from Adam guilt and the sentence of death. You disagree with that. Right?

M: Ellen, as you know, wrote both of the above. In light of everything she wrote about it (see copious quotes posted earlier), I believe we receive hardware and software from our parents and grandparents, dating all the way back to Adam, that results in us sinning naturally, instinctively from the moment we are consciously capable of reacting and responding to inside and outside stimuli (which begins in the womb), and we thereby incur guilt, condemnation, and the death sentence.

A: I agree with what you said. Yes, we receive bad equipment at birth, and we receive bad programming. And when one uses the bad equipment to execute the bad programs, guilt and condemnation and death are incurred.

But I also agree with what EGW said, as she said it. We receive from Adam guilt and death. She didn't say we receive the possibility to earn guilt and death. She didn't say we receive the inclination toward guilt and death. She said we receive them.

No, I do not. And here is the crux of the relation between our understanding of human nature - ours and Christ's - and RBF.

Let me try to summarize our difference, and tell me if I got it right.

I believe that we were made sinners by one man's disobedience - Adam's. You believe that we become sinners when we individually sin for ourselves. I am a sinner because Adam sinned, while you are a sinner because you sinned like Adam sinned.

Here's the flip side. I believe that we are made righteous by one Man's obedience - Christ's. To remain consistent, you must believe that we become righteous when we individually obey for ourselves. I am righteous because Jesus obeyed, while you are righteous because you obey like Jesus obeyed.

For you, sin and righteousness are earned by the person copying his father. For me, sin and righteousness are inherited by the person from his father.

For you, the key is to emulate the right father. For me, the key is to have the right father.

So what should we do if we find that we are born of Adam, and inherit from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death? Switch to a new Father by being born again, born from above, and inherit life and holiness. The old man dies, and the new man walks in newness of life. That's RBF, IMO.

1. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."

I did a search of the SOP and couldn't find where she said Adam was created with "a character".

In any case, he said what he said. You think he would agree with Jones, but that contradicts his own words, which he has published and not recanted. So the current status is that LK teaches that Jesus was like us from the neck up, as Gregory taught.

R: To me it’s obvious she is talking about sinful tendencies passed through birth inheritance from Adam to his offspring.
T: She refers to Adam, but that's not the subject of her statement, right?

R:The statement says, "The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family.” {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}
How are cultivated tendencies transmitted to the offspring? How was Adam's disobedience (a cultivated tendency) transmitted to the human family?

R: Is it your contention that Adam transmitted sinful tendencies to his children only through his example?
T: No. And similarly for parents today. Both cultivated and potential tendencies are passed from parent to their children, the former by influence and the latter by DNA.

R:This one is new to me.

Could you define "potential tendencies"?

T:We don't pass cultivated tendencies by our DNA, right? For example, your former infatuation with soaps isn't passed through your children my means of your DNA, is it?

R:Curiously, some affirm there is a genetic linkage:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/162833/the_7_warning_signals_of_soap_opera.html?cat=39

Because this addiction is generally passed genetically through the mother- a son can be involved -but is often more afraid to admit the problem and so will not seek help as soon as their female counterpart.

Anyway, yes, I believe cultivated tendencies are transmitted as a birth inheritance, although I don’t see how this can be done by means of the DNA.

T: Neural pathway is developed. It's not DNA.
R: ??? What you are affirming does not make sense. I’ve just affirmed that there are innate neural pathways. A classic example is instincts. And, of course, when you inherit a sinful tendency, the kind of behavior correspondent to it is instinctive to you.
T: What's an example of what you're talking about? You quoted covetousness in the case of Judas, but I don't know what you're thinking. My understanding, in regards to human behavior, is that current scientific thought is that very little is instinctive. Did you learn differently?

“There is a lack of consensus on a precise definition of instinct and what human behaviors may be considered instinctual. More confining definitions argue that for a behavior to be instinctual it must be automatic, irresistible, triggered by environmental stimuli, occur in all members of a species, unmodifiable, and not require training. Based on these rigorous criteria, there is no instinctual human behavior. Likewise, some sociologists consider instincts to be innate behaviors that are present in all members of a species and cannot be overridden (Robertson 1989), but since even the drives of sex and hunger can be overridden, this definition also leads to the view that humans have no instincts. On the other hand, other individuals consider certain human behaviors to be instinctual, such as instinctive reflexes in babies (such as fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), since they are free of learning or conditioning, as well as such traits as altruism and the fight or flight response. The concept is still hotly debated.”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Instinct

However, I’m using “instinct” just in the sense of “the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.” In this sense, inherited tendencies are instinctive.

T:The suffering is a good example. If you lose a child, that could help you sympathize with someone else who lost a child, or other relative or friend. However, if one was only tempted on the basis of being tricked, I don't see how that would lead one to sympathize with others who are tempted more deeply than that.

R:All temptations involve tricks, since a temptation is inherently a trick.

And, as I said in previous discussions, the strength of a temptation has to do with several factors.

...because of our sinfulness, hereditary and actual, which was laid upon Him and imparted to Him—He was of Himself in that flesh exactly as is the man who, in the infirmity of the flesh, is laden with sins, actual and hereditary, and who is without God....

R:Again, feeling the guilt and sinfulness of sin is something completely different from facing a temptation.

R:The wicked will be feeling enormous guilt for their own sins on the great judgment day, but they will be facing no temptation.

R: He didn’t have evil desires as I have. The desire I had of watching soap operas is evil in itself, but Christ had no evil desire. The impression I get is that post-lapsarians think that the more evil the desire, the stronger the temptation.

T: The stronger the desire to do the thing being tempted, the strong the temptation. How evil the desire is isn't relevant. I don't think anyone thinks along the lines of what you're suggesting.

R:Sinful tendencies involve evil desires.

"Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome. Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ he lived a sinless life. Now by his divinity he lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by his humanity he reaches us."

This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness.(RH 10/02/00)

So, if you think Christ must have had sinful tendencies in order to understand the true force of temptation, it’s because you think that evil desires are stronger than non-evil desires.

Just a quickie.


Did Jesus sin? Did Jesus die?

?
Mike, you yourself posted the quote:

"In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in character, but in form and feature." {GC 644.3}

Also, there is the quote I posted in my post #129282:

"God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity." {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

But I also agree with what EGW said, as she said it. We receive from Adam guilt and death. She didn't say we receive the possibility to earn guilt and death. She didn't say we receive the inclination toward guilt and death. She said we receive them.

Since fetuses and infants are incapable of experiencing rebirth, it stands to reason, then, that they can only cultivate a sinful character.

Why do you think fetuses and infants are incapable of experiencing rebirth?

MM:Since fetuses and infants are incapable of experiencing rebirth, it stands to reason, then, that they can only cultivate a sinful character.

T:Why do you think fetuses and infants are incapable of experiencing rebirth?

Th:Come on Tom, surely you can see that it is impossible to be re-born until you are first born? You cannot repeat something you did not do a first time.

The real question is, how can the unborn cultivate character, let alone a sinful one?

Why do you think fetuses and infants are incapable of experiencing rebirth?

Did you look at the context? The context of the entire article from which this is taken, and especially the immediate context, is dealing with issues of choice.

From a corporate standpoint, one could make the argument that in Adam we receive guilt, since we were all "in Adam", as we were all "in Christ." So, as Levi paid tithes in Abraham, so we sinned "in Adam" and were redeemed "in Christ." This was a much elaborated theme by Prescott. Jones and Waggoner also discussed this. Ellen White made statements dealing with this as well, for example, by Christ's life the entire race of men was restored to favor with God (1SM 343 or 1SM 353, from memory).

However, this wasn't the context of this particular article.

Rebirth requires conviction, confession, repentance, pardon, thorough Bible study and prayer, commitment, public testimony, and baptism. Fetuses and infants have not reached the age of accountability and are, therefore, incapable of experiencing rebirth.

What do you have in mind?

M: Rebirth requires conviction, confession, repentance, pardon, thorough Bible study and prayer, commitment, public testimony, and baptism. Fetuses and infants have not reached the age of accountability and are, therefore, incapable of experiencing rebirth. What do you have in mind?

T: You're saying you don't think a person can be converted until they reach the age of accountability? Is this correct? If so, when do you think the age of accountability is? (I realize this differs from person to person; a general idea would be fine).

Also you speak of public testimony and baptism. Are you saying you don't think a person can experience rebirth until they are baptized?

Regarding what I have in mind, there are a couple of things. One I'll wait to discuss until your response, which has to do with the age of conversion, and so forth.

The other has to do with whether God can work through a fetus or infant. We know from the case of John the Baptist that the Holy Spirit can work with even a fetus. There's no reason to assume that the Holy Spirit couldn't work with a newborn either.

So the fact that a newborn has sinful flesh doesn't prevent it from being used by the Holy Spirit. Similarly Christ could have taken our flesh, and been used by the Holy Spirit.

I am new to the board.

So hello.

I apologise that I have not had time to read the whole thread, but would like to offer this thought, if it hasn't already been offered:

Jesus was born "born again".

If we understand what that is, we will understand something of Christ's nature I sense.


Mark :-)

I don't think this is correct. That is, LK is not disagreeing with what Jones said. Also, Gregory is not disagreeing with what Jones said either. Gregory was dealing with a different issue.

Gregory was dealing with the question of whether or not Christ had a human mind. Nobody in our present discussion is taking the point of view that Christ did not have a human mind, so this is a moot point, as far as our discussion is concerned.

a:In any case, he said what he said. You think he would agree with Jones, but that contradicts his own words, which he has published and not recanted. So the current status is that LK teaches that Jesus was like us from the neck up, as Gregory taught.


T:I don't think this is correct. That is, LK is not disagreeing with what Jones said. Also, Gregory is not disagreeing with what Jones said either. Gregory was dealing with a different issue.

Gregory was dealing with the question of whether or not Christ had a human mind. Nobody in our present discussion is taking the point of view that Christ did not have a human mind, so this is a moot point, as far as our discussion is concerned.

a:So you are contending that LK, just a couple of years ago, was preaching against the idea that Jesus did not have a human mind?

You are saying that when LK spoke about Jesus not being significantly different from us "from the neck up" (and he did it quite often) he was simply arguing for the truth that Jesus had a human mind?

Exactly who, in that last few hundred years, would LK have been arguing against? Tom, you are grasping at straws. LK is no fool. He's not going to waste his time arguing against ghosts. As you say, it is a moot point. And I guarantee you that he is much too busy to spend so much time giving sermons and writing articles to argue against a moot point.

But if what you are claiming about his statements is true, he could have easily straightened that out with me. He could have sent a quick email: Oh, I'm simply saying that Jesus had a human mind. That would have been the end of it.

But he did not. He had to think about it. I've been waiting for several years for his reply. It is not as simple as you would like us to believe, Tom. He and I wrestled over this for years, and I can tell you that he is not arguing what you claim he was.

If you want to dispute that, go ahead and email him. I'm sure he's very active on the GCO list. I would like to see him say it for himself.

Tom, LK said, "I do most of my thinking from the neck up. I do most of my decision making from the neck up." He did NOT say, "I do most of my decision making with a human mind." He was not arguing for a human mind. He was arguing for a sinful mind vs a sinless mind.

I think what you are saying is just wishful thinking on your part. It is your way of trying to justify and make sense of the various postlaps arguments out there.

The error in LGT runs very deep.

When Adam and Eve sinned, it did something to their DNA, which was passed on to their descendants. If I develop the ability to play the piano or learn a foreign language, that's not passed on genetically to my offspring, although whatever genetic abilities I had could be. This is correct, isn't it? Assuming so, Adam's case would seem to be a special case.

T:We don't pass cultivated tendencies by our DNA, right? For example, your former infatuation with soaps isn't passed through your children my means of your DNA, is it?

I can see how if the mother has a drug addiction, or is nervous, or angry, etc., that things like this would be passed on, but a cultivated tendency like playing the piano or learning a language; I don't see how that could be passed on as a birth inheritance, other than that one is born into a family of musicians.

R: However, I’m using “instinct” just in the sense of “the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.” In this sense, inherited tendencies are instinctive.
T: I've been asking for an example.

R: All temptations involve tricks, since a temptation is inherently a trick.
T: It sounds like you're using "trick" to mean "lie." One can be tempted to do something, knowing what's involved, and choose to do so knowing the consequences, without trickery being involved.

"Sinful tendencies" gives the impression that Christ did something sinful. That's an impression that's best avoided.

Similarly with "evil desire." That sounds sinful on the face of it. Whereas to be tempted to do some act which is a sin is not sinful, if one resists it. If one is only tempted to do things which one has no desire to do, how is that temptation?

MM: Mark, yes, when we consider the human nature of Jesus in light of righteousness by faith, especially the righteousness He empowers us to experience personally in our daily walk with Him, it makes the topic come alive and meaningful. Seems like most people believe being like Jesus, being kind and loving and compassionate, a life of "continual obedience", is impossible. The reason some give as to why they think it is impossible is they believe our sinful flesh nature prevents it.

MT: Jesus was the perfect example of walking by Faith. By Faith, He was dead to the flesh, by Faith, He was full of the Spirit. By Faith He performed Gods will. This also can be our experience... Mark :-)

LK was arguing against the idea that Christ did not assume a fallen human nature.

The point I made is I doubt he was disagreeing with what Jones wrote. You can ask him to be sure.

I think their emphasis on behavior, as opposed to God's character, is off-base. I haven't read things they have written in regards to the human nature which Christ took which would lead me to believe they disagreed with Jones & Waggoner in regards to Christ's assumed human nature.

T:I don't think this is correct. That is, LK is not disagreeing with what Jones said. Also, Gregory is not disagreeing with what Jones said either. Gregory was dealing with a different issue.

Gregory was dealing with the question of whether or not Christ had a human mind. Nobody in our present discussion is taking the point of view that Christ did not have a human mind, so this is a moot point, as far as our discussion is concerned.

a:So you are contending that LK, just a couple of years ago, was preaching against the idea that Jesus did not have a human mind?

T:LK was arguing against the idea that Christ did not assume a fallen human nature.

a:That's right. And for him, human nature includes the part from the neck up.

For you and Jones, the human nature that Jesus took did NOT include the part from the neck up. LK disagrees with you. I know because I talked to him directly about it.

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don’t go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus." . . . In Jesus Christ the mind of God is brought back once more to the sons of men; and Satan is conquered.

T:The point I made is I doubt he was disagreeing with what Jones wrote. You can ask him to be sure.

A:I did. You are just guessing at what LK thinks.

I actually talked to him about it. And I did ask him whether or not he disagreed with Jones. You know, it only takes two keystrokes to type No. But he did not. He has not yet answered my query. The evidence simply does not support what you are postulating.

a:The error in LGT runs very deep.

T:I think their emphasis on behavior, as opposed to God's character, is off-base. I haven't read things they have written in regards to the human nature which Christ took which would lead me to believe they disagreed with Jones & Waggoner in regards to Christ's assumed human nature.

a:There's a simple explanation for that. Whenever you see something that disagrees with your idea of J&W, you simply blur your eyes and say, "They didn't really mean that. What they really meant was [fill in with something that suits your ideas]."

Just look at this particular point that we're discussing. LK said Jesus was the same as fallen man from the neck up. "He was talking about Jesus having a human mind. He was talking about Jesus not being omniscient." You would propose that he was talking about all sorts of things, other than what he actually said.

But when I asked him point blank, he did not give the concise reply that would have sufficed if he was really talking about what you claim he was.

Tom, it is time for you to concede the point. You told Rosangela that nobody is claiming that Jesus had a sinful mind. There's a whole group of them.

And not only do they say that Jesus had a sinful mind.

They also say that Jesus had inner selfish desires.

The only difference, they say, is that Jesus never succumbed to those desires. And they will tell you that if it turns out that Jesus did not have the same selfishness that they wrestle with, they will give up Christianity because He cannot be their example in all things.

Let me tie that in to RBF. These poor souls do not walk by faith. It is not good enough for them that Jesus said, "Be holy for I am holy." God's word is not sufficient for them. They cannot have faith in God unless they first see a physical demonstration. They say that they cannot, they will not be holy unless Jesus first shows them that He can be holy with the same disadvantages that they have. They do not, will not take that leap of faith. It is righteousness by emulation.

Righteousness by faith is a completely different concept. We are to walk by faith, not by sight. We believe, not because we have seen, but because God has said. Like Jesus during the wilderness temptations, we trust God's word over what our senses tell us.

Jesus assumed a human nature that requires us to lay hold of Him by faith, rather than having our foundation in what we can see.

As I was recently made aware of, do you know what season Israel has between the early rains and the late rains?


The rainy season!

Between the spring and autumn months was the hot summer which lasted about three and a half months. During this time, there were no harvests, and no rain. This symbolizes the spiritual drought of the 1260 Years of Papal supremacy.

This goes through the time line:

* Early Spring Rain (First Rain). The coming of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
* Ploughing. When God resurrected Jesus and the first fruits, He literally ploughed the earth, or dug up the earth. For three and a half years Jesus and the disciples ploughed the field in Israel to get them ready for the planting of the seed (His death) and the coming of the Holy Spirit with power.
* Seed Planted. Jesus was the Seed planted in the earth at His death. Ploughing and planting continued during the rainy season to increase the yield.
* Reaping the Grain harvest. The 3000 souls saved at Pentecost and the dead who were raised at the resurrection.
* Drought. In the physical world the summer drought occurred in this time. But in the spiritual world it is still raining. The Holy Spirit is here, but He is ignored. So, practically, there was a spiritual drought in the middle of rain from heaven.
* Late Autumn Rain (Last Rain). The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the end of time in the harvest rain....
* Reaping the Fruit harvest. The billions of souls saved at the Second Coming.
* Ploughing. Notice that the spiritual and agricultural ploughing seasons merge at the great resurrection. We will be ploughed up from this old earth and planted in Heaven.
* Winter Rest. We will grow during the winter months of the millennium.

This is from http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre17hstfeasts.html. I didn't look through this in detail, but it seemed to have this outlined as I understand it. That is:

* Early Spring Rain (First Rain). The coming of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
* Drought. In the physical world the summer drought occurred in this time.
* Late Autumn Rain (Last Rain).

There was this note:



The 1260 years come from:

a.3 1/2 months of drought
b.lengthened to 3 1/2 years of drought
c.equals 1260 days

Between the spring and autumn months was the hot summer which lasted about three and a half months. During this time, there were no harvests, and no rain. This symbolizes the spiritual drought of the 1260 Years of Papal supremacy.

MM: You said believers can be like Jesus. When does it happen?

MT: There are the stages of the Christian experience we have to go through which was given in the chronology of the Disciples experience.

It all relates to the Holy Spirit.

1. They walked with Jesus for 3 1/2 years, but did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

2. They received the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit in the upper room, after Christ's ascencsion (the former rain).

3. They prayed and fasted for 40 days and were taught about the "kingdom of God" by Jesus (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).

4. They then received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (the latter rain), which was to give them power for evangelism.


Now most of our brethren are still in stage 1.

Some of us have moved to stage 2 & 3.

When we have learnt stage 3, we will be ready for stage 4.

The outpouring.

At that time, the Loud Cry swells and goes to the whole world.


So we have to figure out individually where we are and where we should be...

So, now that your research and mine turned out opposing results, whence to?

I've never heard anything like this before. It sounds like you're saying believers cannot be like Jesus until after 3 1/2 years and several more time consuming stages of growth. Where in the Bible and the SOP is this idea taught?

MM: You said believers can be like Jesus. When does it happen?

MT: There are the stages of the Christian experience we have to go through which was given in the chronology of the Disciples experience.

It all relates to the Holy Spirit.

1. They walked with Jesus for 3 1/2 years, but did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

2. They received the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit in the upper room, after Christ's ascencsion (the former rain).

3. They prayed and fasted for 40 days and were taught about the "kingdom of God" by Jesus (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).

4. They then received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (the latter rain), which was to give them power for evangelism.

Now most of our brethren are still in stage 1. Some of us have moved to stage 2 & 3. When we have learnt stage 3, we will be ready for stage 4. The outpouring. At that time, the Loud Cry swells and goes to the whole world. So we have to figure out individually where we are and where we should be...

MM: I've never heard anything like this before. It sounds like you're saying believers cannot be like Jesus until after 3 1/2 years and several more time consuming stages of growth. Where in the Bible and the SOP is this idea taught?

MT: This is all biblical, no external sources. It is relating to the disciples experience, which can be tracked. Would you like me to point to the texts?

4. They then received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (the latter rain), which was to give them power for evangelism.

Mark, I'm fairly familiar with the disciples experience, but thank you for offering to post the texts. I guess what I'm asking is - Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say believers cannot be like Jesus until after 3 1/2 years and several more time consuming stages of growth? I am not aware of any texts which describe the "process of conversion" in this way. Seems to me that on the day of Pentecost thousands experienced rebirth. What do you think?

The official SDA position concerning the "latter rain" prophecy/experience makes it clear it hasn't happened yet. Do you agree with this position?

You might want to join the study on this link.

Tom,

Lets try the biblical approach. Can you make your a-b-c case above by the bible?

We are to walk by faith, not by sight. We believe, not because we have seen, but because God has said.

I took something like 6 or 8 classes while at school over several years, and there's just too much material to cover in this sort of forum. I've tried to provide some direction for how you could research this on your own, if you're interested, and I would be happy to do more along these lines.

Arnold, I am hoping and praying you are not covered in mud. All the rain and mud is making a mess of things all around you.

So what is the next step?