Lesson #9 - Freedom in CHRIST

This week's lesson answers the sin problem of last week's lesson.

Here is the link to this week's lesson material:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/10c/less09.html

From the Sabbath afternoon section:

Romans 7 describes Paul successfully submitting and subjecting the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated by his fallen flesh nature to a sanctified will and mind. Instead of sinning Paul triumphantly overcomes the ungodly clamorings of his sinful flesh nature. In Romans 8 Paul goes on to say that Jesus also successfully reigned in and overcame the unholy clamorings produced by His sinful flesh nature.

That isn't what the author of the Sabbath School Quarterly says in the Sabbath PM Section, which I will repeat again here and bold the relevant part.

Right. But I disagree with him. Paul says, "I allow not ... it is no more I that do it ... I myself serve the law of God."

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/sabbath_school/2010/08/21/romans_8_context

Mike,

Don't you think there is a struggle with the flesh before (in the process of) conversion, and a struggle with the flesh after conversion?

Mike, you disagree that "in Romans 7 Paul speaks of frustration, failure, and condemnation"?

Indeed, Daryl...and Mike, that's not what the lesson Quarterly says or what the text says.

Rom 7 presents failure, not success in spiritual exercises - that is, lack of spiritual exercises. The chapter ends with the knowledge of the solution to that misunderstanding of spiritual warfare by the unconverted believer, not the actual success of his endeavours.

Also, the freedom and victory of a personal relationship "in Christ" with Jesus by his Spirit, the Father (Rom 8:11a) and Son's omnipresence among us, comes by a miracle....

Putting the old man to death each day is the essence of this miracle: living in the Spirit comes after crucifying the old man of sinful flesh and carnal mind by grace through faith. That's a double miracle, too.

Denying self, thus, is possible since Jesus crucified self literally on his cross: that's the legal necessity of the cross for our salvation, enabling believing sinners to be converted by the experience of putting self, sinful flesh & carnal mind, to death through the faith of Jesus. Without our death to sin in Christ on his cross, we cannot be converted.

"Condemnation"...: this is where I personally disagree with the lesson study, helped by several leading, senior pastors.

The late lesson author, and the church generally it seems, too, hold this view that "condemnation" comes from sinful choices we each make. This is mistaken, since "guilt" is what comes from our sins, while condemnation is...the legal status of sinful flesh.

"Under the law" (eg. Rom 6:14b) is equally the legal environment of sinful flesh, given this legal status of condemnation of sinful mankind's nature, not an experience of guilty - else Christ would not have been "born...under the law". Both these legal aspects of sinful nature - "no condemnation" and "under the law" - indeed are changed in the teachings of Romans. Condemnation is removed from the world, by grace (2 Cor 5:14b; Heb 2:9; Rom 8:1c, only in the KJV, shouldn't be there, as it fits in Rom 8:4 only, instead, for it is, truly, an experience of faith) - and we experience being "under grace" (Rom 6:14b), rather than the law's condemnation of our nature, by daily death to self through faith.

Christ does this for the world (its justification by grace in Christ's person) and also in us (justification by faith, i.e. the experience we have of justification by grace) by him having taken our condemned, sinful flesh as his own and dying primarily, also as the Son of God and Author of life, putting our selfish, sinful flesh to death eternally as he suffered divine wrath against sin.

With our sinful flesh thus legally executed, as required by the law condemning it for its sinfulness, in God's judgement on sin in Jesus for us, the whole world is thereby freed from condemnation and believers may then experience this life "under grace" and "not under law" (Heb 2:14, 15). Sinful nature itself, in principle & before & separate from the guilt from our 'eventual' choice to sin, suffers condemnation and being under the law. The redemption that is through Christ Jesus is from condemned, sinful nature and the carnal mind, not just release from guilt.

Were "under the law" about having sinned 'again', then Jesus "being born of a woman, born under the law" makes no sense, Biblically. It makes sense for Jesus if "under the law" means solely the legal environment of sinful nature, which he took for his own and "condemned sin in the flesh". Condemned, sinful nature was then judged by our holy God in our Substitute's death for sin, redeeming us from our nature's judgement of death.

Any questions?

In the following passage Paul describes born-again, fully converted believers (people who are actively, aggressively abiding in Jesus, partaking of the divine nature, living in harmony with everything Jesus commanded) successfully recognizing and resisting the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated via sinful flesh nature tempting them from within to be unlike Jesus. Paul is definitely not talking about believers sinning and repenting, sinning and repenting. He goes on to say that Jesus, who was also tempted from within via sinful flesh nature to indulge His innocent and legitimate needs in unholy ways, successfully submitted and subjected them to a sanctified will and mind.

Colin, are you saying sinful flesh nature is condemned? If so, by who or what? And, how does it impact the host, the human being?

No, Paul is not talking about believers sinning and repenting. He is talking about sinners who see that the law is good in their mind, but are not able to live according to it because they haven't yet been born again. He is speaking about his own struggle before he accepted Jesus.

Paul says, "I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." What was it that brought that commandment to the mind of Paul but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom Jesus said, "the Father will send in my name? He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Paul continues, "And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which was good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." {RH, April 1, 1890 par. 4}

Men sometimes become ashamed of their sinful ways, and give up some of their evil habits, before they are aroused to manifestly come to Christ; but it is the power of the gospel, the grace of Christ, that is drawing them to make reformation in their conduct. An influence of which they are unconscious works upon the soul, and the conscience is quickened, and the outward life is amended. And as Christ draws them to look upon his cross, to look upon him whom their sins have pierced, the commandment comes home to the conscience. The wickedness of their life, the deep-seated sin of the soul, is revealed to them. They begin to comprehend something of the righteousness of Christ, and exclaim, "Was all this love, all this suffering, all this humiliation demanded that we might not perish, but have everlasting life?" They then understand that it is the goodness of God that leadeth to repentance. A repentance such as this lies beyond the reach of our own powers to accomplish; it is obtained only from Christ, who ascended up on high, and has given gifts unto men. Christ is the source of every right impulse. He is the only one who can arouse in the natural heart enmity against sin. He is the source of our power if we would be saved. No soul can repent without the grace of Christ. The sinner may pray that he may know how to repent. God reveals Christ to the sinner, and when he sees the purity of the Son of God, he is not ignorant of the character of sin. By faith in the work and power of Christ, enmity against sin and Satan is created in his heart. Those whom God pardons are first made penitent. {RH, April 1, 1890 par. 5}

The apostle Paul, in relating his experience, presents an important truth concerning the work to be wrought in conversion. He says, "I was alive without the law once"--he felt no condemnation; "but when the commandment came," when the law of God was urged upon his conscience, "sin revived, and I died." Then he saw himself a sinner, condemned by the divine law. Mark, it was Paul, and not the law, that died (4SP 297). {6BC 1076.7}

That means you do disagree? Paul, in your view, does not speak of frustration, failure, and condemnation"?

I mostly agree with this, and the quotations are to the point. Regarding Paul I agree, but regarding others, I think it could include those who have backslid. I think the general principle Paul is getting at is that the flesh, apart from divine help, is unable to keep the law, and this is true regardless of whether one has never been converted, or has been but has backslid.

I agree.

Paul said, "I allow not ... it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." I hear you saying this reflects the experience of an unconverted person.

Yes, it is condemned, by God's holiness & law - requiring the death, i.e. execution & eternal extinction, of the sinful nature and the (unrepentant) sinner, in judgement. It impacts the human being, and therefore the Saviour of all men, as expressed here:
We are redeemed from our sinful nature's condemnation and not just released from our guilt.

Colin, still not sure of something. Are believers, who have "ceased from sin", condemned because they possess sinful flesh nature?

Ceased from sinning?

Can anybody make such a claim?

As it is written:

1 Peter
1Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

2That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

PS - They will not go around boasting, "I have ceased sinning." They are too focused on Jesus to do such a thing. Nevertheless, they know God looks upon them and declares, "They have ceased from sin." As it is written, "Ye may know that ye have eternal life."

Knowing such a thing would maybe be the devils most sophisticated temptation to the sin of pride.

Good point. But please bear in mind it is not a sin to be tempted. Nor is it a sin to believe you are right with God and heaven-bound. It's called the "blessed assurance".

John 5
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 6
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

1 John 2
25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

True, it is no sin to be tempted, nor to believe that you are right with God. Believing that you are right with God based on something you did or something that finds its source within yourself might be.

John 5; The Pharisees erroneously thought that searching the scriptures would bring them life in itself, but they only guide the student to the source of life.

Knowing you are right with God is based on very different reasons than knowing why you are saved. Our salvation is based entirely on what Jesus did for us on the cross. Knowing we are right with God is based on believing Jesus satisfied our sin debt of death on the cross AND believing the fruits of the Spirit we experience while abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature are "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph 4:24).

Are you aware that Ellen White says that we shouldn't say we are saved?

Daryl, those comments by her are in the context of the Holy Flesh movement. It has a very definite meaning.

It doesn't matter whether sinning or not, Mike, though knowing oneself free from condemnation requires knowledge of the gospel and faith in Jesus, too.

"Freedom in Christ", this lesson's title, is really about what grace has done - "what God hath wrought" (...as Ellen White would say): it is true, strictly speaking, regardless of what sinners do with Christ, though of course not totally separable from our response to Christ.

Jesus freed the world from the condemnation of sinful nature by putting that sinful nature eternally to death (the very death it was condemned to) in his person, on the cross - it was his own, assumed human nature. Knowing Jesus by grace through faith and hearing the gospel brings the saint knowledge & experience of being free from this condemnation, by being born from above and spiritually putting the old man of sin to death, each day and moment of living faith.

Forgiveness of guilt is a separate, vital experience - another legal point altogether, following confession of sin, etc.

Just so, Jesus could not have been "born of a woman, born under the law" if "under the law" means suffering guilt, as the lesson suggests: "under the law" has to mean born under the sinful nature's natural condemnation, freeable only by Jesus redeeming the world from that condemnation, etc.

To make it clear (enough?), sinful nature's condemnation was ended by Jesus at the cross, by tasting eternal death for every man as the Lamb of God. (Hence Rom 8:1c KJV shouldn't be there, as it fits only in Rom 8:4.) We know of that freedom as we die daily to sin, to live under grace, born from above each day (Rom 8:4, among other texts).

Sinful nature cannot (of course) go to heaven due to its sinfulness, so we receive immortality before we go to heaven; in the same sense Jesus at the beginning of salvation redeems us from our sinful nature. We experience that redemption from sinfulness when first actually converted, and receiving immortality is the end result for all, especially those still living to see Jesus come again, of being redeemed from sinful human nature. Again, it was executed eternally for all in Jesus' personal death, he having taken sinful flesh as his own.

What Mike says is true about EGW, but, Daryl, "cease from sinning" isn't saying or suggesting we are saved by ourselves.

We believe God has promised to empower us to achieve perfect Christlikeness, with Christ's righteous character traits,...not independent of Christ.

It seems to me that the following explains how we can know we are right with God:

Colin, is it more accurate to say Jesus made freedom from sinful flesh nature's condemnation available on the cross to penitent sinners?

Also, when people experience the miracle of rebirth does their sinful flesh nature cease tempting them from within to be unlike Jesus?

This can't be right, because it would imply that those who lived before the cross could not have freedom from sinful flesh, which is obviously not true (e.g. Elijah, Enoch).

The cross has been efficacious since the day God implemented the plan of salvation. See Rev 13:8.

You asked if it wouldn't be more accurate to say that Jesus made freedom from sinful flesh nature's condemnation available on the cross to penitent sinners. But this freedom was available before the cross. So it was available before then.

Tom, what do you think Colin would say? My question was addressed to him. He wrote, "Jesus freed the world from the condemnation of sinful nature by putting that sinful nature eternally to death (the very death it was condemned to) in his person, on the cross - it was his own, assumed human nature."

He said "world" whereas I limited it to "penitent sinners". Is that more accurate? Or, do you believe Jesus eternally put to death sinful nature and it's condemnation on the cross and thereby set the world free?

I'll let Colin speak for himself. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't put things in these terms. I think the big issues involve God's character. Jesus revealed the truth about God, and we are saved as we open our hearts to this truth.

Yes, I can answer that, Mike.

Penitent sinners alone experience the spiritual reality of death to sin - via the accomplishment by Jesus of putting the old man to death forever on the tree...Dying daily is the 'negative', legal, salvation requirement for sinners our Saviour gives by his death; forgiveness is the other 'negative' accomplishment legally obtained by Jesus' death "for all men" (Heb 2:9), Tom. 'Positive' legal requirements of salvation start with the new birth of justification by faith...

For the world..., Mike: it is the truth of the Second Adam and the "in Christ" motif. The world was "in Christ" by grace since he took as his own its sinful nature, "taking humanity into himself" - as Sister White also says somewhere. What he did thus counts for them, but they must actually be penitent so that they may experience it personally. Christ is first the world's Saviour, then every sinner's personal Saviour.

The world was set free by Jesus' action as its Saviour: this is what grace has done for the world! It is legal fact: "the Saviour of the world" (the Samaritans' confession of faith in Jesus in John 4) saved the world from the condemnation of its sinful nature. He did this saving by meting out that condemnation - eternal death - on the sinful nature he took for his own and thus shared with the world, representing all humanity in himself, the Second Adam, in his death as the Lamb of God.

A fuller Bible study can show all this, but the point is that "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24) the world's Saviour perfected in his own life & person, i.e. achieved and obtained for all men, complete freedom from the condemnation of sinful flesh. The world legally has this in its Saviour, but can't possess and experience it without individual faith of dying daily.

Opening our hearts is selfish, for our hearts are sinful, Tom.

Unless we give our corrupted hearts to Jesus so he can give us new hearts, your concise summary is flawed and at best the unconverted man of Romans 7. Where & when do you include dying to self & sin?

Dying daily is a common phrase, but denying self in our experience of faith (Lk 9:23) is possible only because Jesus personally did so to the full extent of putting the old man to death forever in his own person. "Freedom in Christ" is realised, i.e. known, only in the saints' spiritual lives of conversion, but it is true first in Christ as he died to sin for us all.

True justification by faith is being born from above, but unless Jesus died to sin as well as for sin on his cross Rom 8:4 can't happen in us. Dying to self is the first step in salvation for us, as it was for Jesus on earth, faithful till death, as he qualified as Saviour of the world.

Colin, in what way do impenitent people benefit from what Jesus accomplished through His life and death? I realize it bought them probation, but what else?

To open our hearts to the truth revealed by God is not selfish nor sinful, but the only way to salvation, which the SOP explains here:



The love of God shines from the cross, and if we do not resist, but respond (i.e. open our hearts to the truth revealed by God), then we will be saved.

Regarding dying to self and sin, that's spoken of in the text cited. "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." This cannot be done without dying to self and sin. The law is written in the heart; this involves death to self and sin.

Here's another statement that speaks to the theme:

PTI, but here's one way:

Tom, isn't this another way of saying Jesus bought them probation? In what way do you think probation (or the provisions you cited) benefits the impenitent (people who refuse to embrace Jesus as their personal Savior)?

In the way she pointed out; it gives them physical life. Our physical life, and even the ability we have to refuse Christ, is the purchase of His blood. This is what she's saying.

Colin,

If Jesus, for some reason, had to die for Himself, He couldn't die for others.

Probation, mortal life itself, pro-creation, the pursuit of happiness - Mike, these are obvious benefits of the cross for "all men".

But, really...: the second death: it no longer applies to anyone, because of Jesus, by grace, while probation lasts. Jesus tasted the second death not only for those who will believe in him, but also for those who don't and/or won't....That's truly mind-blowing!!...and heart warming.


So, the world has been reconciled to God by the death of his Son. (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:19)

[God leading in this reconciliation is the essence of propitiation, for expiation means that man appeases his heathen gods - such appeasement isn't Biblical. God also is wrath against sin, in propitiation, rather than not at all, in expiation. Yes, it's a philosophical difference between those words which impacts theology.]

Jesus is already the world's Saviour from the judgement of eternal death on sin - being saved from sin in the life is the experience of grace, not just the fact of grace that the world has a living Saviour. Next I'll deal with justification and the cross..., to clear up the confusion allowed by our scholars, as showed by the Primacy of the Gospel Committee report.

He can't free us from human nature's condemnation by taking it on himself, etc, huh?

Is that your question? If so: he isn't inherently human, since he is God's only begotten Son by nature: he took the condemnation of our nature into himself without becoming subject to it by letting corruption rest on him, and needing a Saviour on both counts. That is, he perfected righteousness, rejecting the old man, sinful mind of our humanity, not becoming carnally minded as a sinner, establishing "the mind of Christ" of the new humanity of the Second Adam.

We equally go outside our nature as Jesus gives us the power of God to become children of God, partaking of the divine nature which is experiencing the indwelling Spirit of God. Jesus did just that, pioneering the faith, and his meritorious, human character of righteousness raised him above the condemnation of divine wrath due his assumed, sinful human flesh.

He could thus die for others, indeed as all others whom he took into himself by taking their corporate nature, and corporately free them from their nature's condemnation in his person.

That's the essence of Rom 7:1-4: the law binding the woman to her husband is really this condemnation binding humans to eternal death: only by suffering & dying that condemnation in Jesus' person, by grace and then through faith, can all sinful humans be freed from the prison of living in a dead nature (Rom 7:24), to live eternally, born again in the new creation of Jesus' righteous mind of justification by faith.

...or was that not your question?

The question is, Did He die because He was condemned or because we were condemned?

Well, I guessed right first time, then, actually.

To your one-line, it's not that simple...

He took our condemned flesh as his own but was not personally condemned by it - as I said first time, he is both not naturally human in his own right and he lived a righteous life which preserved him from the condemned nature he took. He bore the condemnation of our nature, having taken it as his own; he suffered also our guilt, having been separated from his Father by the undiluted wrath of God, on the cross.

The assumed, i.e. taken, sinful humanity of Christ was condemned, but the human character of Christ was righteous by faith, so his death was our condemnation suffered in his body and our justification rooted in his merits as the Lamb of God (Rom 4:25).

What's the undiluted wrath of God?

In what way does it benefit them? Jesus and Peter had this to say:

Matthew
18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark
14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

2 Peter
2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Also, do you believe Jesus justified everyone on the cross? Or, do you believe He made justification available and possible?

Full, eternal separation from God, also known as the second death judgement on sin and sinners.

The guilt we suffer after sinning and before confessing is a faint, merciful hint of that wrath of God.

You may differ with the first line, there, on the wrath of God, I think.

PS - Colin, your LOC: (upper right corner) used to say something about England. Now it says E. Oregon, USA.

Yes, Mike, I've married an American SDA, at the start of this year.

So you took the jump from England to US without even allowing yourself a transition period in, say, Canada?

Colin, congratulations. Eastern Oregon is beautiful. Several years ago we seriously considered moving to Baker City or La Grande. I really like the Wallowa Mountains. Have taught outdoor classes there for Walla Walla College. And, of course, rafting in Hells Canyon is truly adventurous.

So Christ experienced full, eternal separation from God, or the second death judgment on sin an sinners. What does this mean? That is, what happened to Christ?



What causes the guilt we suffer?



I don't differ with what you said. I might differ with what you mean, but I'm not sure, as I'm not sure what you think God did to Christ, or what God will do to the wicked.

Lol, Vaster.

I have Canadian friends, too - and Canada is better in some ways, but this time I made a beeline , he he, pulled by our heart strings. (...no 'hearts' around here )

Yes, really scenic round here, but England is a lusher green, mainly grass too, like all over - without (m)any barren stretches. Hell's Canyon is across the border, in Idaho, of course.

This is a dispersed, rural SDA community too, unlike in SE WA & Nampa, ID. But we have a couple of church members nearby, too.

Colin, Christ’s human nature can’t be separated from Himself - He was the God-man. So, if His human nature was condemned, He was condemned. But if He had to die because of His own condemnation, He couldn’t die because of our condemnation.

In what way does it benefit them? Jesus and Peter had this to say:

Matthew
18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark
14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

2 Peter
2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Also, do you believe Jesus justified everyone on the cross? Or, do you believe He merely made it available and possible?

In the way she pointed out; it gives them physical life. Our physical life, and even the ability we have to refuse Christ, is the purchase of His blood. This is what she's saying.



It would depend upon what you meant by this. W. W. Prescott spoke in these terms (i.e., everyone being justified) in the 1895 GCB. Many people get confused by this language, however, so I prefer to stick with how EGW put things, which I think is clear. For example:

Christ "tasted death", so he experienced spiritual separation from God: withdrawal of the Holy Spirit, bringing deepest sorrow, and no personal hope of resurrection after impending death.

That's the spiritual, mental and personal equivalent of the second death of hell fire on judgement day. He drained the cup of judgement given him by his Father, in Gethsemane. He thus fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of Ps 22, which he quoted, too, of course.

God judges sin and the sinner, contrary to him as these are, at the appointed time, and grace gives sinners a Saviour and Substitute for this judgement, dying their death as them, having taken them into himself by taking their sinful, condemned nature as his own....obvious to relate to you.


God's judgement on sin in our life experience: and mercy reducing the weight of guilt we suffer.

[/quote]
To sin God is a consuming fire, and what I mean is that God judges sin, as described. God does act against sin: his justice demands the death of the sinner, from Lucifer on down, and that's what God's will for the Suffering Servant was. Amen.

Thank you for clarifying your understanding. Yet, you missed the part about his merits & human character....

First "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh", but also in his character was no sin, he developing in human nature merits of the world's salvation. "Likeness" there also means he was God, too, not that he took sinful human nature without sin..., which is plainly illogical.

Also, since he is by nature divine, he is not by nature human. Thus able to remain above the eternal death due human nature.

Christ died humanity's condemnation as mankind - died as us, see 2 Cor 15:14. His character of righteousness preserved him above the lack of resurrection suffered by the wicked on that day. Rom 4:25 says that was raised up on the tree, cursed of God for us - "because of our offences"...check Strong's for the meanings available of that verse, and resurrected "because of our justification".

Christ suffered our condemnation because by faith and righteousness he was also our Saviour from our nature's condemnation and guilt.

From what I'm reading of what you wrote, it appears you are saying the sinner would be OK if God didn't act against his sin. So it's not that sin is causes the sinner problems, but God does, by His judgment against sin. Is that correct?

I couldn't help noticing you didn't respond to what Jesus and Peter said about it. Based on what they said, it sounds like probation (temporary sustenance) isn't a blessing for certain people.


By "restored the whole race of men to favor with God" do you think she is saying Jesus justified everyone on the cross? By "justified" I mean:

"To be justified means to be pardoned. To those whom God justifies He imputes Christ's righteousness, for the Saviour has taken away our sin. We stand before the throne of God justified and sanctified. We are emptied of self, and, through the sanctification of the truth, Christ abides in our hearts." {TDG 358.4}

You cited texts dealing with another subject. For Scriptures dealing with the same subject, I suggest Romans 5:18, 2 Cor. 5:14,15,19;John 2:2;Isa. 44:22;1 John 4:14.

The question you've asked is how the sacrifice of Christ benefits those who choose not to be saved. The answer is that it gives them physical life. So unless you think having physical life is of no value, there you have it. Everything that every person has, whether they choose to be saved or not, they owe to Christ; it is the purchase of His blood. This is what DA 660 says, right?



It would depend upon what you meant by this. W. W. Prescott spoke in these terms (i.e., everyone being justified) in the 1895 GCB. Many people get confused by this language, however, so I prefer to stick with how EGW put things.



This is a definition for "justification." Specifically, this is dealing with justification by faith. Prescoss dealt with four meanings of justification in his 1895 sermon. There's no reason to limit the meaning of this word to just one meaning, but if you choose to do so, then I'd again stick to other statements of the SOP, which I've cited, such as 1SM 343 and DA 660, which I think are clear as they stand (that is, there's no need to take her plain language and try to explain it with theological language).

Tom, I do not believe Jesus "justified" (see specific definition above) everyone on the cross. Instead, I believe He earned the legal right on the cross to pardon the penitent. Also, I agree with what Jesus and Peter said about people who miss the mark. It would have been better if they hadn't been born. They experience no temporal or physical benefit being alive.

Mike, of course Jesus didn't pardon everyone at Calvary.

He is, however, everyone's Saviour and their salvivic righteousness, and that's legally effective by grace: Amen!! Therefore, by grace and law, the world is justified by grace in the person of its Saviour. Thereafter & thereby anyone may believe in Jesus and experience pardon and regeneration of justification by faith.

Justification by faith is an experience, not purely forensic: forgetting the subjective element of justification is the biggest mistake any Christian can make in understanding the power of the gospel. Adventists are foremost in neglecting this truth - that justification by faith is indeed subjective, too, which we hold in our literature but are shy to proclaim in the face of Evangelical ignorance and confusion on the matter.

The Saviour must be given his rights of grace, as "Saviour of the world".

Look, this doesn't work. He is by nature divine and He is by nature human - He has both natures.


Our human nature is condemned because it is depraved. So your contention is that Christ's human nature was depraved?

As I stated, this definition is *a* definition of "justified," but not the one that Prescott used, which was similar to the quote I cited from 1SM 343 which says that Christ restored the entire race of men to favor with God.



He pardoned people before dying on the cross, so clearly He had the right to do so.



That's fine, but has nothing to do with your question. You asked how the death of cross benefits those who choose to be lost. EGW explained how in DA 660, the quote I cited.



Sure they did, just like anyone else.

Yes, he has a joint nature, in fact - they are not separable, but he has only God as his Father, not a man. Sorry I wasn't saying it clearly enough B4.

BTW, Every aspect of the gospel record of Jesus is pivotal to salvation: his divine Sonship - hence truly God, his incarnation "in the likeness of sinful flesh", his life, his death, and of course his resurrection, ascension and both phases of his heavenly high priestly ministry.

Human by incarnation not procreation, he both took our condemned state of existence - sinfulness - as his own and overcame it by the power of agape and "the mind of Christ". While qualifying as the Lamb of God with his life of righteousness by faith, the condemnation of nature he took on by becoming man and remaining God's Son is not of a nature inherently his: it would have condemned him to death like it will the wicked who reject his death for them were it not for his character of righteousness, which saves the world, to live to God; he both suffered the judgemental fate of sinful humanity, for the law demands justice against sin & sinfulness, and redeemed us from that fate to eternal life with his righteousness.


He took our nature: what other type of human nature is there, than "sinful flesh"? There's also yet "the mind of Christ". Our church used to be unanimous on the first point, Ellen White among others using the word degraded, etc.

Is Gal 5:17 true?? The Spirit trumps the flesh in a live clash of faith, so it's very true. Christ took such condemned flesh and left it in hell, cursed on the tree. He simultaneously saved the world from it by forging salvivic righteousness in his human character, despite his humanity's sinfulness.

He took sinful flesh to hang it on the cross, amen, and developed righteousness of human character to be the Lamb of God - only after that is he our Example: taking our condemned, depraved nature was taking our race's condemnation for his own but he never let our individual corruption rest on him, becoming carnal, for he learned righteousness by perfect obedience - never falling into temptation, by faith. A difference with us, yes, who learn righteousness after falling into temptation...Had he sinned, his joint nature would have been lost - what a thought, what a risk!

He died our death because of our offence - bearing our guilt & our natural condemnation, and rose again to our life because he is justification. Rom 4:25.

You seem to be presenting 2 arguments:
1) Christ's divine nature would have shielded Him from the condemnation of His human nature
2) Christ's human character would have shielded Him from the condemnation of His human nature

I don't see how these statements can be substantiated and I can't see what the logic is behind them.


When Ellen White says "degraded" she is referring to the physical aspect, when she says "depraved" she has something completely different in view - the moral aspect. Depravity is the opposite of righteousness. Besides, in the moral aspect, "nature" and "character" are one and the same thing.

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

"The human character is depraved, deformed by sin, and terribly unlike that of the first man as he came from the hands of the Creator." --Review and Herald, Nov. 24, 1885. {YRP 57.3}

The following are synonyms for "degraded"(Websters):

Tom, when I said that by "degraded" Ellen White was referring to the physical aspect, I was saying it in reference to Christ.
"Degraded" can be used in a much more general sense than "depraved." "Degraded" doesn't necessarily refer to the moral aspect, while "depraved" necessarily refers to the moral aspect. For instance, in the following sentence,

"Eden, beautiful Eden, was degraded by the introduction of sin." {20MR 151.2}

The word "degraded" obviously refers to the physical aspect, and obviously you couldn't haved used "depraved" here, because "depraved" necessarily refers to the moral aspect.

Now, anyone is free to believe that Christ (or His nature) was corrupt, demoralized, depraved, dissolute, etc. but this view is in disagreement with the Bible and with Ellen White's position. She never applies the word "depraved" to Christ's nature, and what she makes clear about Christ's humanity is the following:

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. ... 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing." {13MR 19.1}

Here are the synonmyns for "degraded":



One of the synomyns is "depraved"! "Degraded" comes from "degrade," which is to step down a grade. How she actually uses the word is set by the context, but not determined by the word itself.

The word "sinful" is used in reference to the human nature which Christ assumed! You can't find a word less offensive than "sinful"!

Of course this is dealing with the physical aspect, as that's what assuming a nature involves. As she points out, the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. The sinful nature can tempt, but it cannot act.

While Christ assumed the same nature we have, our sinful nature, He never acceded to the temptations of that nature.

Yes, I would say simply, that our Christian experience of spirituality & morality is following in Christ's exemplary experience.

Choosing "the mind of Christ" instead of the sinful mind is our daily experience of born again justification, is precisely what Jesus did & had to do. Lk 9:23. He had to choose against the sinful mind and flesh, and choose the Spirit of his Father to follow his Father's will rather than the will of his human flesh and mind instead. He lived a perfectly righteous life so that primarily he could be the Lamb of God...: thereafter he is our Example.

Yes, like we have to choose between the morally depraved mind and body we have and Christ's Spirit, as Christians, so Christ did. Thus he is the world's perfect & complete Saviour.

Look at what I said:
>>"Degraded" doesn't necessarily refer to the moral aspect, while "depraved" necessarily refers to the moral aspect.<<
Your body is degraded, not depraved. If, however, you refer to the moral aspect, both are synonymous.
But I will repeat it: Ellen White never uses the words "depraved" or "corrupt" in relation to Christ ("depraved" = "corrupt"). In fact, she is quite clear that not a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, and that those who refer to Christ's human nature in that way are completely wrong.

In relation to Christ's character, she not only didn't use the words "depraved" or "corrupt," she didn't use the words "degraded" or "defiled" either. But in relation to the human nature which Christ assumed, she used all sorts of negative words, the most offensive one being "sinful"! You can't get any worse than that! She spoke of it being "degraded and defiled by sin."

You're going to have a hard time trying to interpret this as meaning something different than, for example, "corrupted by sin." The point is that sin did something bad to the human nature which Christ assumed, which is the human nature that we have by birth. However, Christ, unlike us, never sinned in that assumed human nature, and so the SOP is careful not to use language that could be taken to imply that He did.

Christ had no taint of or inclination to corruption. And sinful tendencies are obviously a taint of, and an inclination to, corruption.
What is a nature "degraded and defiled by sin"? It's a body affected by sin, not a mind infected with sin. "Depraved" and "corrupt" obviously refer to the moral aspect of man. But the moral aspect has to do with the mind, not with the body.
We don’t sin because we have some kind of physical defect; we sin because we have a moral defect. We are born with a defective character, or a carnal mind, or wrong thought patterns. We are born not loving God nor His law. We are born with propensities of disobedience. That’s why we must be born again.
Take a look again at these parallel statements:

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

"The human character is depraved, deformed by sin, and terribly unlike that of the first man as he came from the hands of the Creator." --Review and Herald, Nov. 24, 1885. {YRP 57.3}

Of course not. Christ was sinless and divine. He took our sinful human nature upon His own divine, sinless nature.



This is true of the assumed human nature Christ took. (I realize this is redundant, but it's clear!)



Right. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. Christ's assumed human nature could tempt Him, as it tempts us, but Christ always said "no," so no corruption or taint rested upon Him, which would have been the case had He not resisted temptation.



It would depend on the context. "Corrupt" and "defiled" are very similar concepts. It would be difficult to argue that it's OK to be "defiled" but not OK to be "corrupted."



Right. Christ took our sinful human nature, but He had the "mind of Christ."



If we sin, that creates a moral defect. We don't have a moral defect apart from sin. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. It, of itself, does not create a moral defect, which is clear from the fact that Christ took the same sinful flesh that we have.



We're born with a nature that inclines us to these things. A character is something which is developed. A baby, or fetus, hasn't really done much to develop a character.



Or loving anything. Babies and fetuses don't love. That's beyond their ability.



Which is to say, we are born with sinful natures.



That's a reason we must be born again. We need to be partakers of the divine nature, which we are not inherently partakers of.

Being "born again" also involves a change in paradigm, a change in looking at things.



These don't look to be dealing with our flesh, right? The word "nature" can mean different things, depending on context.

It's futile to try to dissociate Christ from His human nature. And Ellen White is obviously speaking of His human nature in this statement, not of His divine nature.


So you mean that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption, rested upon Christ's nature but didn't rest upon Him? Tom, please, be serious!


We are born with a carnal mind, Christ was born with the divine mind - this makes all the difference in the world. What tempts us to sin is our carnal mind, not our body. This carnal mind is the same as the carnal nature. It's this carnal nature which tempts us.

"Every Christian will be assailed by the allurements of the world, the clamors of the carnal nature, and the direct temptations of Satan [the three sources of temptation: the world, the flesh and the devil]. No one is safe. No matter what our experience has been, no matter how high our station, we need to watch and pray continually. We must be daily controlled by the Spirit of God or we are controlled by Satan." {5T 102.1}


But it's this nature which is "depraved" and, obviously, condemned by God.

Uh, wait!...We are not born carnal We are not born sinners, we are born sinful.

WE CONFUSE THAT AT PERIL OF DESTROYING OUR GOSPEL EXPERIENCE.

Carnality is the habit of choosing to sin, not what we are born as, though it comes from choosing & accepting what we are born as - sinfulness: falling into temptation. As Christians we opt instead for living by the Spirit than living by sinfulness, learning to reject carnal lifestyles. This Christ perfected in righteousness by faith, being born of the Spirit, etc. Therefore, he also took our condemnation of nature and crucified it physically, having crucified it daily by grace through faith, becoming our Saviour from sin, by death. Amen.

We sin because we're sinful; we're sinners because we sin.

NOT: We sin because we're sinners; we're sinners because we sin.

? Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. That's exactly what this is doing.



The question is she is speaking of His assumed human nature, which is to say, our sinful flesh. As I explained, "nature" can mean different things, depending upon the context.



Christ took our sinful nature, degraded and defiled by sin, upon His own (divine) sinless nature. If one said that Christ's nature was degraded or defiled by sin, or that a taint of corruption rested upon it, that could easily be misunderstood as implying that Christ had sinned.



I was talking about our sinful flesh, not carnal mind. Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature, not our carnal mind.





Christ was tempted in all points as we are [the three sources of temptation: the world, the flesh, and the devil]. He didn't have a carnal mind though; He had sinful flesh.



The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. Condemnation comes when there is volition. For example:

I completely disagree.
The Word of God defines what the carnal mind is:

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7).

"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}

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

We are born with a disinclination to, an opposition to, the law of God.

We are born with a natural enmity against God. Tom may say we are not born loving anyone, but this is not true at all. We are born loving ourselves, loving ourselves above anything else, and this is evident in any baby's experience.

Precisely. In His case, "flesh" was different from carnal mind. But, in our case, the two are one and the same thing.

The sinful human mind becomes carnal by use; it is not carnal by mere existence.

Don't mistake that, else all sorts of mistakes follow, about Christ & us.

To rephrase it, from earlier: We sin because we're sinful; we're carnal because we sin.

All sorts of issues hang on this correct distinction, including God's ability by grace to save us from sin "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus": our freedom in Christ starts with Christ "condemning sin the flesh" - only possible by Christ taking human flesh with sinfulness in it. It's all interrelated, of course.

Where's that thread on Christ's humanity...?

But..., that's separating Christ from us: sorry, you can't do that. Carnality, in us, results from sinning, not from being born.

Carnal and sinful are not synonyms: we die to self and sin daily by faith, just as Jesus did - we follow his example. Christian reality is a copy of the Saviour. Don't separate us from the original, please, for else there is no salvation from sinning, just from guilt - and the Bible teach salvation from both.

You start to use it as soon as you are born, and this can be seen in any newborn.

Of course I can do that, for this is our only hope. Acquiring the mind of Christ is the only way to be freed from the carnal mind and, thus, from sinning.

I made my statement in regards to fetuses and newborns. You're saying that it's evident from any new born that the newborn is born loving itself?



This is the primary definition for "love" from Webster's. I said that fetuses and newborns don't love anybody because they don't love. They haven't developed that capability. You say that fetuses and newborns love themselves, and that this is evident. How so? They have a "strong affection" for themselves? This would mean that fetuses and babies are capable of experiencing "strong affection." On what do you base the assertion that fetuses and newborns are capable of such experiences? On what do you base the assertion that it is "evident" that newborns have this experience in relation to themselves?

They're not the same thing. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God, but the carnal mind can.

Why would you limit this to being born? That is, this wouldn't start happening at birth, right? It would be difficult to observe what a fetus is doing inside the womb, but it's not qualitatively acting any differently inside than outside, right? So it's not accurate to say "you start to use it as soon as you are born" is it?

On what basis do you assert a fetus (or newborn) is using a carnal mind? Because it cries when its hungry? How is it acting any differently than say a cat? Would we say a cat has a carnal mind because it meows when its hungry?

That's fine: the point is..., that it's by choice and not by nature alone.

We make our sinful minds carnal by choice, not by existing. The mystery of Christ's infancy & childhood righteousness by faithful choices compared to typical children, etc, isn't a salvivic necessity to solve: we learn of righteousness later in life, anyway.

What you were separating from us was Christ coming all the way down to where we are fallen to, by nature - a connection by him necessary for salvation itself: his righteousness qualifies him to be Saviour....

...Yes, the church's modern position is not the original, as it publicly admitted, and doesn't work for the remnant movement preparing for Christ's return by developing Christlikeness with him, now.

And this is the primary definition for “love” from Ellen White:

Supreme love for God and unselfish love for one another--this is the best gift that our heavenly Father can bestow. This love is not an impulse but a divine principle, a permanent power. The unconsecrated heart cannot originate or produce it. Only in the heart where Jesus reigns is it found. --AA 551

In the heart renewed by divine grace, love is the ruling principle of action. It modifies the character, governs the impulses, controls the passions, and ennobles the affections. This love, cherished in the soul, sweetens the life, and sheds a refining influence on all around. {AG 237.5}

A divine principle found in the heart of those in whom Christ reigns, which rules the character, governs the impulses, controls the passions and ennoble the affections. Where is this definition in Webster’s? A holy being is born with this principle implanted in the heart.

Tom, selfishness is "inwrought in our very being," as Ellen White says, before we are born - in fact, from the moment we are conceived - but brain activity begins in fetuses from the sixth month onward, if memory serves me well. However, as you said, we don't know what happens before birth, so, for all practical purposes, we begin to show selfishness from the moment we are born.


I'd say the principle of selfishness extended to animals, too, when man sinned. Have you ever seen an animal steal food from another animal? Have you ever seen animals fight for food, or territory, or whatever?
In humans the manifestation of this principle is the carnal mind – me first.

It's the nature which produces the choices. As I use to say, there is no way a thornbush doesn't produce thorns.
The physical nature of Jesus was weak like ours; He was a real man. The difference was in His moral nature - i.e., in His mind. Christ was born with a divine mind - a mind none of us is born with. But He overcame because of His divine mind - and this is our hope.

OK, we can use this definition for "love" if you prefer. This seems rather out of place in the context your assertion that newborns do love. How is it you see this love appearing in fetuses and newborns? And how does this apply in terms of your assertion that newborns love self? How would this work?



Or this? How is this the love for self that you say newborns have?



What I said is that newborns, and fetuses, do not love at all. You disputed this by saying that newborns do love, that they love themselves. It seemed logical to define "love" since this is something you are asserting newborns do, which I denied. So I did so using Webster's. You, apparently, took issue to this definition and are using Ellen White to suggest a different one I guess. Really, I'm not sure what you're doing. But you are the one who says that I was wrong in saying that newborns and fetuses don't love at all, so please explain what you mean by this.

So would you assert that fetuses starting at age 6 months are capable of love? And they love themselves? (in a sinful way, I suppose).



No, I didn't say we don't know what happens before birth. I said it's more difficult to observe the behavior of the fetus than the newborn.



Ok, so animals have a carnal mind as well.



It's your belief that an animal is acting selfishly when it seeks to feed itself? And this is the carnal mind at work?

It's the mind that produces choices, not the flesh. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.



What you're calling the "physical nature" of Jesus is "sinful flesh," which involves far more than physical weakness. To mention just one thing, our sinful flesh tempts us, and this was true of Jesus Christ as well.



Yes, indeed! That *was* the difference! Not that Christ assumed a human nature different than ours.



Not inherently born with. Does one have to be a certain age to be born again? If so, what age would that be?



Only if He overcame what we have to face.

....that "public admission" is by scholars, not the GC...: sorry.

Tom,
What I’m saying is that love and selfishness are principles - principles which determine the way we act or react, which govern our unconscious impulses, which influence our feelings, which control our passions, which rule our character.
If newborns have feelings, impulses, actions, reactions, they must be controlled either by love or by selfishness.
The problem is not seeking to feed oneself, but your feelings, impulses and reactions when you wish your needs met and when they are not immediately met.
Selfishness, or love to self, is just the principle of “me first.” And “me first” is the principle every human being, except Christ, was born with.
Animals are also governed by the principle of “me first.” But, of course, they do not have a carnal mind.


Internal foes are generated by the carnal nature, and they occur because of idols and darling sins present in the heart.

“Every obstacle, every internal foe, only increases your need of Christ. He came to take away the heart of stone, and give you a heart of flesh. Look to Him for special grace to overcome your peculiar faults. When assailed by temptation, steadfastly resist the evil promptings. . . . Cry to the dear Saviour for help to sacrifice every idol and to put away every darling sin. “ {AG 84.5}

“There are idols within and idols without; but God sends the Holy Spirit as the reprover of sin, that his people may be warned of their apostasy, and rebuked for their backsliding.” {NPU Gleaner, April 21, 1909 par. 5}

“In the battle with inward sin and outward temptation, even the wise and powerful Solomon was vanquished.” {PK 82.2}

We must strive daily against outward evil and inward sin, if we would reach the perfection of Christian character. {RH, May 30, 1882 par. 1}


He didn’t face any idols and darling sins which posed inward temptations.

"Divine mind"?...: He lived a human life despite his joint nature; that's no divine mind, but the Holy Spirit given him from his Father indwelling him, the Son of man.

Submitting daily to the Spirit means that he possessed a sinful human mind which he daily equally denied. "The mind of Christ" is the exercise of opting for the spirit rather than the sinful mind & flesh of human existence. Christ teaches us to put that old man to death as we opt for the Spirit. This was a positive requirement of salvation he fulfilled in his own life, of course.

As for "it's the nature that produces the choices": We are not born sinners! We were created with free choice, and God offers the power of salvation from sinful choices: Jesus took that offer and lived a perfect life as our Saviour. Sinful nature does not obligate us to sin...!

Gal 5:17 spells doom for our sinful flesh, and Jesus perfected the formula before we experience it, too.

Tsk, tsk...
Christ with a sinful mind? This is absurd.
Colin, what part of Christ was His divine nature?


It does. Sinful nature delights in sin. That's why you have to be born again.

If that be the case, then he did not save us from them in us, and so he failed in the mission of his name's meaning...! "...Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins."

In other words, attaining perfect Christian character is ruled out, and Adventism is dead....

...if that be the truth.

But, that is not the truth of the Bible and original Adventist teaching on Jesus, as we all know , there being now confusion and at least two schools of thought. Adventism needs the original position of the church restored to have the full gospel truth - amen! - as I've presented from the beginning of my posts on this Sabbath School lesson.

If this were true, it would apply to fetuses as well (let's say age 6 months, to use your guess, which is fine). So, under this hypothesis, any impules, action, or reaction that a 6 month old fetus would have must be controlled by love or selfishness, but this doesn't make sense.

Many of the impulses and reactions we have, even at our advanced age, are unconscious, like reflexes, digestion, all sorts of things. The brain conrolls all of these things, and it take a long time before a moral aspect enters into play.

I don't see how one could reasonably ascribe a moral aspect to anything a 6 month old fetus does.

Similarly with cats and other animals. They act on the basis of instinct. It's not immoral for a cat to meow because its hungry.



The feeling would be one of hunger, for a cat, or newborn, and the impulse or action would be to try to attract the attention of the one who could provide food to provide it.



A 6 month old fetus does not love at all. Whether you use Webster, or Ellen White, to define "love," the 6 month old fetus does not have it.



"Me first" is a moral principle. Animals have no concept of morality. The are guided by the instinct of self-preservation.



But a 6 month old fetus does? What's the difference? (between the 6 month old fetus and the cat, in terms of morality)



You're conflating different concepts. One concept is "sinful flesh." "Carnal mind" is another concept. The flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God. The mind can.

"Carnal nature" involves the participation of the mind. "Sinful flesh" (or "sinful nature") does not. It's very important that we be careful and precise in our use of terms!

For example, Christ took our sinful nature; we can say that. However, Christ did NOT take our carnal nature. Never does inspiration state this, although many times we are told that Christ took our sinful nature, or sinful flesh.

Our flesh generates temptations, and our mind serves as an inbetween. The flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God because the higher powers of the mind are involved whenever we make moral decisions. Christ had the same flesh we have, with the same generated temptations, but when these temptations passed by the higher powers of His mind, He always said, "No." So Christ never participated in sin, and so did not have a carnal, or sinning, nature.



We have all (other then Christ) sinned, so we have temptations based on both the fact that we have sinful natures and sinful pasts. We need to overcome both types of temptations.



If this were true, we would have no hope in overcoming these things. Our only hope in overcoming is in Christ. We cannot hope to do more than He did!, to overcome in areas where He didn't overcome.

We're not asked to do what Christ did, and more, in addition to that, but rather, to make His victory ours.

...Correction

He bore in his body sinful inclinations, and a family history of sinning from which he was not excluded: "the great law of heredity" worked on him.

Yes, he was burdened with corruption and the habits of cherished sins, but he was burdened with sinfulness itself, and he resisted it by the power of God which makes us children of God and him our Saviour, righteous by faith.

Another correction..., of a correction. lol Missed the editing deadline... : It should read...

If He were not of the same flesh as are those whom He came to redeem, then there is no sort of use of His being made flesh at all. More than this: Since the only flesh that there is in this wide world which He came to redeem is just the poor, sinful, lost, human flesh that all mankind have; if this is not the flesh that he was made, then He never really came to the world which needs to be redeemed. For if he came in a human nature different from that which human nature in this world actually is, then, even though He were in the world, yet for any practical purposes in reaching man and helping him, he was as far from him as if He had never come, for, in that case, in His human nature He was just as far from man and just as much of another world as if He had never come into this world at all....

The faith of Rome as to the human nature of Christ and Mary and of ourselves springs from that idea of the natural mind that God is too pure and too holy to dwell with us and in us in our sinful human nature; that sinful as we are, we are too far off for Him in His purity and holiness to come to us just as we are.

The true faith--the faith of Jesus--is that, far off from God as we are in our sinfulness, in our human nature which He took, He has come to us just where we are; that, infinitely pure and holy as He is, and sinful, degraded, and lost as we are, He in Christ by His Holy Spirit will willingly dwell with us and in us to save us, to purify us, and to make us holy....

"When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Gal. 4:4.

"And the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6.

We have seen that in His being made of a woman, Christ reached sin at the very fountain head of its entrance into this world and that He must be made of a woman to do this. Also there was laid upon Him the iniquity, in the actual sins, of us all.

Thus all the sin of this world, from its origin in the world to the end of it in the world, was laid upon Him--both sin as it is in itself and sin as it is when committed by us; sin in its tendency and sin in the act: sin as it is hereditary in us, uncommitted by us; and sin as it is committed by us.

Only thus could it be that there should be laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Only by His subjecting Himself to the law of heredity could He reach sin in full and true measure as sin truly is. Without this there could be laid upon Him our sins which have been actually committed, with the guilt and condemnation that belong to them. But beyond this there is in each person, in many ways, the liability to sin inherited from generations back which has not yet culminated in the act of sinning but which is ever ready, when occasion offers, to blaze forth in the actual committing of sins. David's great sin is an illustration of this. Ps. 51:5; 2 Sam. 11:2.

In delivering us from sin, it is not enough that we shall be saved from the sins that we have actually committed; we must be saved from committing other sins. And that this may be so, there must be met and subdued this hereditary liability to sin; we must become possessed of power to keep us from sinning--a power to conquer this liability, this hereditary tendency that is in us to sin.

All our sins which we have actually committed were laid upon Him, were imputed to Him, so that His righteousness may be laid upon us, may be imputed to us. Also our liability to sin was laid upon Him, in His being made flesh, in His being born of a woman, of the same flesh and blood as we are, so that His righteousness might be actually manifested in us as our daily life.

Thus He met sin in the flesh which He took and triumphed over it, as it is written: "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." And again: "He is our peace,...having abolished in His flesh the enmity."

And thus, just as our sins actually committed were imputed to Him that His righteousness might be imputed to us, so His meeting and conquering in the flesh the liability to sin and in that same flesh manifesting righteousness, enables us in Him, and Him in us, to meet and conquer in the flesh this same liability to sin and to manifest righteousness in the same flesh.

And thus it is that for the sins which we have actually committed, for the sins that are past, His righteousness is imputed to us, as our sins were imputed to Him. And to keep us from sinning His righteousness is imparted to us in our flesh as our flesh, with its liability to sin, was imparted to Him. Thus He is the complete Saviour. He saves from all the sins that we have actually committed and saves equally from all the sins that we might commit dwelling apart from Him.

This brings out that *both* by heredity and imputation Christ was "laden with sin." It's true that Christ had no "darling sins" or "idols" of His own to overcome, but He had ours!



1.With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption.

Elsewhere EGW points out that it was this very fact, that Christ had the weight of the sins of the world upon Him, that made these temptations so difficult. Christ had *two* important aspects of temptation to overcome, "laden with sin" by "imputation and heredity" as Jones put it.

2.If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us.

The "in any sense" portion of the quote we wish to take notice of. For example, if we had "darling sins" and "idols" to face that in now way impacted Christ, that would be a sense that we have a more trying conflict than Christ had.'

"We have nothing to bear which He has not endured." This makes the same point. Nothing to bear (including "darling sins" and "idols")

3."From the time of Adam to that of Christ, self-indulgence had increased the power of the appetites and passions, until they had almost unlimited control. Thus men had become debased and diseased, and of themselves it was impossible for them to overcome. In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test. For our sake He exercised a self-control stronger than hunger or death."

This brings out that self-indulgence had increased the power of the appetites and passions. This is in the context of the temptations that Christ overcame and the nature that Christ assumed. Christ's assumed human nature thus involves far more than trivial factors such as being weak physically, or getting tired. It gets to the actual nitty-gritty that impacts us, and makes our temptations so difficult.

Of course I'm referring to impulses, actions and reactions which involve feelings, not mere physical impulses like sucking a thumb. Little is known about intra-uterine life, so I will abstain from commenting on that.


Animals have "feelings" too, like jealousy, anger, etc.


Things are not so simple as that. The feelings of a child (although unconscious) can be, "Look at me! I am upset and I want you to do something about it!" This kind of behavior becomes more and more evident as the child grows.


If Adam had not sinned, would a six-month-old fetus have the law of God written in his heart? (I don't claim to know the answer to this.) Would a newborn have it? (Yes.) If so, then love would guide their feelings, actions and reactions - their passions. Today, selfishness guides it.


The mind cannot be dissociated from the body. If there is sinful flesh, there is carnal nature, unless the divine mind completely replaces the carnal mind, which is what happened in Christ's case. He had our body but Adam's mind.


This may be true in regard to physical addictions, but not in other areas. Or do you think it's your body which generates temptations for you to break the Sabbath? For you to kill? For you to steal? For you to covet? (Think specially about the first time you do it, not about sinful habits of the past.)


What you are saying is not true at all. You believe Christ had the temptations of a lesbian and of a pedophile. I don't believe that, as this is completely absurd. I believe Christ took on Himself the guilt for their sins, not that He was tempted with their temptations.
Using your reasoning, there is no hope for the woman to whom makeup, jewery, or fashion dresses, or soap operas constitute a temptation. Christ didn't need to be tempted with the very same temptations each person in the world faces, but with the same classes of temptations we face.

The text says that, with the "weight of the sins" (not temptations) of the world upon Him, Christ faced His own temptations.


There is no imputation of temptations. This makes no sense at all. A man cannot be tempted with the temptations which are specifically feminine, and vice-versa. Being tempted means being tempted to do some specific thing. Christ was tempted to jump from the temple pinnacle. This was a temptation which had to do with the pride of display. A temptation to use makeup has nothing to do with Him. (This idea would be laughable, if it were not blasphemous.)

What sort of feelings are you talking about? Feelings that a 6-month fetus thru newborn would have?



Which must be guided by either love or selfishness?




A newborn?



What would have happened from the age of 6 months to 9 months to have caused the law to be written on the heart?



But they don't love. They haven't developed that capability. You look to be arguing in a circle.

I'm asking you to come up with some definition of love, and explain how a 6 month fetus thru newborn would be capable of that. You're answering by arguing that if Adam had not sinned, then the law would have been written in the new-born's heart, so therefore it would be guided by love. But this is assuming the very thing I'm asking you to explain.

Define "love" however you want, and explain how a 6 month fetus thru new born is able to do that.



That has nothing to do with the fact that "sinful flesh" (or "sinful nature") is different than "carnal nature."



No, not in the case of Christ. Christ had sinful flesh, but not a carnal nature.



Even if the divine mind completely replaces the carnal mind, the carnal nature remains, because the carnal nature comes as the result of participating in sin. The reason Christ did not have a carnal mind is because He never participated in sin, not because He didn't have sinful flesh.




I just said that our flesh generates tempations. I didn't say it generates *all* our temptations.



It doesn't appear to me that you beleive Christ was tempted with *any* temptation we are tempted with. Did you read what I quoted from A. T. Jones? I quoted at length so the argument could be understood. He mentioned temptations from heredity and from imputation. Christ, from heredity, assumed the same sinful nature we have, and, in addition, He took our sins. So He had the ability to be tempted in both ways as we are tempted, both because of the temptations which our sinful nature generates, and the sins which come as a result of our having committed them. Jones went into detail regarding this.

And, indeed, these two things are the two things which make temptations difficult for us. We have a heredity that causes us to be tempted, and we have committed sins, which also makes temptations difficult for us.

It appears to me that you don't believe that either of the two things which make temptations difficult applied to Christ.

Neither I nor Jones said otherwise. Nor Ellen White, for that matter. She said it was His having taken our sins that made the temptations in the wilderness so difficult for Him to overcome. Jones went into detail about this.

Nobody said anything about Christ's having taken the "weigh of temptations."



Did you read what Jones wrote? Your response isn't making sense. It doesn't appear you read it.



This is so unresponsive to any I wrote or quoted, it's difficult to guess what prompted it. The only thing I can think of to do is to ask that you quote something, and comment on that please.

It seems that rather than dealing with the real issues being raised, your making straw men, caricatrues, and laughing at them.

Tom, not so long ago it was thought that newborn babies were simply a jumble of reflexes. Today this has changed completely. It's recognized that children have basic personality characteristics right from birth, and that they do have feelings. I'm providing the following links to articles which speak about newborn's feelings:

http://www.thewellspring.com/flex/attach...or-pleasure.cfm

http://www.thewellspring.com/flex/attach...l-developed.cfm

The Bible itself shows us that even pre-borns have feelings:

"For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:44).


In fact, as I said previously, we are loving or selfish from conception, since these things come to us as an inheritance. It's just that, since "heart" means "mind," perhaps it wouldn't be considered correct to speak of the law being written on the heart before there is some kind of consciousness. However, brain research suggests consciousness starts at six months of gestation, perhaps earlier. So it seems it would be correct to speak of the law being written in the heart of pre-borns this age.


It’s not a question of being “capable of” something. Love is a principle unconsciously manifested in one's actions/reactions, governing one's feelings/impulses. It's part of the character and of the personality with which one is born. It's part of who you are.


The Bible defines the carnal mind as an opposition to God's law. Ellen White says we are born with an opposition to God's law. It's simple. By the way, there’s nothing “neutral” in this world, spiritually speaking. We are either born with a carnal mind or with a holy mind. Which is it?


Please specify which temptations it generates, or cite some examples.

Ok, you said:

First, no human being on earth inherits all the sinful tendencies which plague the human race. Nobody is 100% good nor 100% bad. We are a mix. What is being claimed here is that Christ inherited all the sinful tendencies possible for the human race, which is absurd. And, if He didn't inherit all the sinful tendencies which are possible, it stands to reason that those who inherited the sinful tendencies which Christ did not inherit are without hope.
Second, saying that Christ had our "darling sins" or "idols" to overcome makes no sense at all. The fact that our sins were imputed to Him, that He felt the guilt of them, has nothing to do with experiencing the very same temptations we experience. What does the fact that the vanity slave is tempted by fashion dresses has to do with Christ? What I said is that He was tempted to vanity in the second temptation, not that He was tempted exactly like the woman who is tempted by fashion dresses. In His three temptations were represented the three classes of temptations which all human beings face.

I'm not disputing that 6 monthh old fetuses thru newborns have feelings. I asked you what feelings you were were talking about that you said must be controlled by either selfishness or love.



Ok, if you wish to push back the 6 month fetus to an earlier time frame, that's fine. In what way is a xygote loving or selfish?



But surely you can see that more than merely consciousness is involved here. Having the law written on the heart and mind is discussed here:



Having the law written on the heart and mind means saying, with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." This isn't something a 6 month old fetus, or a newborn, does, even less than that they love, something I pointed out many posts ago, and to which you still haven't responded. That is, I've been asking in what sense babies, or 6 month old fetuses love, and don't believe you have answered.



Only if we have a very superficial understanding of what having the law written on the mind and heart means, and similarly in regards to love. You don't appear to be considering morality in any of this. That is, morality involves the ability to make decisions. This is the same point in regards to love and having the law written on the heart and mind. To say these things happen to a 6 month old fetus makes these things all amoral. (i.e. not moral questions)

What is claimed where? If you're talking about what A. T. Jones wrote, then I would question why Ellen White would so enthusiastically endorse teachings which are "absurd." If you're talking about something I wrote, what do you have in mind that I wrote?



Let's see if I'm following your argument. Your argument is:
1.It's absurd to suggest that Christ inhereited all the sinful tendencies which are possible.
2.If it is the case that one is without hope if one has sinful
tendencies which Christ did not inherit, then those who had sinful tendencies which Christ did not inherit are without hope.
3.Therefore our hope is not dependent upon not having sinful tendencies which Christ did not have.

From this it follows that it's not necessary for Christ to have inherited *any* sinful tendencies that we have. I assume this is your argument, and your position?



This is what Jones is arguing, isn't it? What I'd like to establish is that you agree that I've correctly interpreted what Jones said. I'd like to know whether you're disagreeing with my interpretation of what Jones said, or with what Jones said.



Your idea is nothing, I take it? So the vanity slave should not be directed to find hope in the fact that Christ was tempted as (s)he was?



What makes the temptation difficult for the vanity slave are two things:

1)Heredity.
2)Past history.

I'm understanding you to say that Christ's temptations involved neither of these things. Basically your idea, as I understand it, is that if an angel from heaven were to take a human body that could tire and hunger, that angel's temptations (if it were tempted by Satan in the wilderness as Christ was, after having fasted as Christ did) would be no different than Christ's were. Is this a correct understanding?

I'm not seeing the connection in your thinking between Christ's temptations and ours, which I see both the SOP and A. T. Jones bringing out very strongly.

In its own constitution.


Sure. It means to be in harmony with God's character and law. Adam was created in that way, and his children would have been born that way. Naturally loving, naturally good.


I've never said they love, but that holy babies would have been controlled by love, which is very different. This is having a loving and unselfish disposition naturally flowing from one's heart.


Obviously the ability to make decisions comes later in the life of a child. This doesn't preclude a child from being naturally loving or selfish before that.

Yes, I’m referring to A. T. Jones, with whom I suppose you agree. Did she endorse Jones/Waggoner's writings or their preaching? And does her endorsement mean she agreed with 100% of what they said?


Yes.


With what Jones said.


Christ was tempted as (s)he was in essence, not in form. So the vanity slave would find hope in Christ’s second temptation.


I don’t think the strength of a temptation has to do with just these factors. A temptation is a combination of factors.

This is simply sinful human nature. This is precisely what Christ took!



Christ accepted the results of what? The "great law of heredity." What is this? It's what you call the "constitution" of the xygote. Christ took this "constitution" (our "sinful nature") upon His own sinless nature. It was in that Christ accepted the working of the "great law of heredity" that He was able to "share our sorrows and temptations."



By choice. "I delight to do Thy will, O my God" is the expression of a choice.



This isn't under dispute.



Yes you did. I'll find the post. Hold on a moment. Post 127601





No, you said what I said you said, and I've been asking you to explain this ever since.



Right.



It precludes them from doing anything which requires making a decision, such as loving someone one, or making a selfish decision.

Both.



People use exactly the same argument in regards to Ellen White. Not everything she wrote was inspired, so they feel free to excuse as not inspired anything they disagree with. Similarly, you disagree with Jones and Waggoner no matter what I quote from them, and I've quoted extensively from them, on many different subjects. How can it be that I just so happen to quote things which are outside of the umbrella of what she was endorsing every time I quote them? How can I be so lucky?

On the subject of our discussion, Jones himself said it was the heart of Christianity. Jones and Waggoner both considered the subject to be fundamental to their teachings on righteousness by faith, as it was. The position one takes on this subject has a profound impact on one's approach to righteousness by faith, which is why people react so strongly to it. It impacts the gospel we preach. This is clear.

Now if Jones and Waggoner were wrong regarding the nature of Christ, then they were wrong regarding righteousness by faith and the Gospel. This makes one wonder how EGW could say that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she, and how she could have endorsed them as messengers of rightesouness by faith the way she did.

So while there could be some unimportant point on some subject that Jones and Waggoner said or wrote which she wasn't endorsing, it's clear she was endorsing their message on righteousness by faith, and anything core to the message of righteousness by faith which they preached would have to be included.



This is completely opposed to what Jones and Waggoner taught. Their message of righteousness by faith could not possibly have been true if this were the case (i.e., if your position were true; That is, it cannot both be the case that your position here is correct, and their message of righteousness by faith was true).



Ok.



Not in essence at all, and that's the problem. You've got this backwards. You have Christ's temptation *only* being a form, and skipping the essence altogether.



But how? What's there to recognize in terms of commonality in regards to what makes the temptation difficult? (i.e., its essence).



I said this is what makes the temptation difficult, not that this is what temptation had to do with, or only had to do with. The thing is, what makes the temptation for a certain thing difficult for us is that this thing is a part of us. It's either a part of us because of heredity, or habit. If we assert it nothing to do with Christ, because then He wouldn't be holy, or would need a Savior (or for whatever reason), then we are disassociating Christ from us on specifically the point, or points, upon which we need help.

In Heb. 4 and 5, it says that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, and because of this, we should come to Him in time of need, because He was compassed with infirmity as we are. In other words, because He knows what it's like to be us. He can help me with my temptation because He knows what it is like to be tempted as I am tempted. He's been through it, by heredity and imputation, involving both sin in its potential and in its commission. You're cutting Christ off from both, and making His being tempted no different than if an angel from heaven were tempted, who assumed a weakened human body. But sinful flesh involves much more than simply becoming tired or hungry.

The DA 49 quote makes this clear:



What were the results in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors? Becoming hungry or tired? No, of course not. They were licentiousness, debauchery, etc.

It seems so. However, the most important aspect of this is its manifestation in the mind. A selfish person is selfish in his/her mind/character/personality. But this didn't happen with Christ, because He was born with the divine mind.


Adam was created by God with a heart/mind in harmony with His law and will. Where is "choice" here? Obviously "choice" came later in his life.


Wait a moment! Let's make a distinction between love as a principle and love as a feeling. In post 127601 I was speaking of love/selfishness as principles. These are innate (and in this sense, love to self is innate). You are either born concerned with your own welfare and interests and having little or no concern for others (selfishness) or you are born not concerned with your own welfare and interests first (love).
But in my last post, when I said, "I've never said they love" I was referring to love as a feeling (not principle), which is something learned (you learn to love your parents, your friends, etc). Look at what I said: "I've never said they love [feeling], but that holy babies would have been controlled by love" [principle].


It precludes them from making conscious selfish/loving decisions, but not from making unconscious selfish/loving decisions.

J & W are not inspired, Ellen White is. So, in doctrinal terms, either you accept everything she said, or nothing. But Ellen White endorsed other people (Crozier, Uriah Smith) without endorsing everything they said, for some of their statements are in direct opposition to what she said. I understand the same happened in J & W's case.


Apart from my personality traits, I don't even know what is a part of me because of heredity. Heredity just means you are more prone to some habits, but heredity without habit is almost nothing. Habit is indeed a problem, but Jesus didn't have any habits of sin, so He couldn't be tempted in terms of habit. What was the temptation which appealed to His sin habits? None, of course. Habit does make a temptation difficult if that habit is an idol. After you've dealt with that idol, that temptation loses much of its strength (like in the case of my past habit of watching soap operas). A combination of factors makes a temptation difficult. Christ was human and internal factors, like His physical needs, were weak points. The appeal to His human passions, like showing who He really was, was also very tempting. Also the appeal to HIs ambition, and so on. Who would endure a temptation like the first one in the desert? Who would endure a temptation like that of the Gethsemane and the cross?


You speak repeatedly about "sinful flesh" as an almost overwhelming factor in temptation. If sinful flesh is something different from carnal nature, either I don't have a sinful flesh or I don't know what it is, because I never recognize it as an important factor in my temptations. Would you please give me an example of a temptation involving the strength of "sinful flesh"? You mention "licentiousness" and "debauchery." I suspect all these arguments about "sinful flesh" have mainly to do with sex. In that case you would consider that men are more tempted than women and have a greater disadvantage than they?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. We are born with sinful natures, that which they zygote has. Christ assumed this same sinful nature. Before you seemed to be taking issue with this. Now you seem to be agreeing with it.



Of course Adam and Eve were created in harmony with God. They were adults, however, not newborns or fetuses. I'm not seeing the connection here.



You said back in the post I referenced that babies are born loving themselves. I said they don't love at all. You said I was wrong. I defined love using Webster's and reiterated babies didn't love. You gave another definition from Ellen White. I said that applied to newborns even less.

I've been asking since the original post for you to explain how babies love, and then I see a denial that you ever said this.

So are we born loving ourselves or not? If so, how do you define love, and what specifically does a newborn, or 6 month old fetus that has consciousness, do to love itself?



You suggested 6 months as the time when fetuses have consciousness. Do we not care about consciousness anymore?

What's an example of an unconscious selfish/loving decision that a 6 month old fetus makes? (or newborn, or younger than 6 months of consciousness doesn't matter)

1)J & W were, according to EGW, "messengers of God" who bore a message from God. Have you read the 1888 Materials? These were things, letter and sermons and such, that Ellen White either wrote or spoke during the 1888 era. The same issues ur raising were raised then, and she dealt with these in her letters and talks.

2)Given EGW was inspired, her endorsements of J & W were inspired as well. She said Waggoner could teach RbF better than she could. It's hard to fathom why she would say that if basically Waggoner was completely wrong on his whole framework. You have Waggoner being completely different than EGW on the nature of Christ, and he's completely different from her on RbF as well.



Where did she say this? Also, why would this be limited to doctrinal things?



She endorsed J & W over 2,000 times. She said they had a message from God for the purpose of enabling people to stand in the day of Christ. She identified their message as the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry. She said all sorts of things she didn't say of others. This is hardly a fair or adequate comparison.

Also, you didn't deal with my points. The first one is that their teaching of righteousness by faith depended upon their view of Christ's human nature. The second is, every time I quote them you disagree with them, and I've quoted them dozens of times on many different subjects. It's simply not reasonable to assume that it just so happens they are wrong whenever I quote them. You're making her endorsement of no effect. She might as well have not endorsed them at all, as far as the impact on you is concerned is how it appears to me.



I'll just deal with a portion of this, which I think gets to the nitty-gritty:



This is the whole problem right here! How does one deal with that idol? Is it by virtue of a victory which Christ wrought, or is it by forging ground where Christ did not walk?



I've mentioned two factors: sinful flesh and having committed the sin. That is, sin in its potential and in its commission. Both contribute.



I don't understand how you're thinking here. That sinful flesh is different than carnal nature isn't dependent upon your having sinful flesh or not recognizing it as an important factor in your temptations. Sinful flesh has to do with DNA. Carnal nature has to do with participating in sin.



Anything your DNA steers you toward.



Or drugs.



Regarding specifically sexual temptation? I don't know. I think women are tempted sexually as much as men are, I would guess. Just in a different way (i.e., men more visually).

This is what I believe now: I don't know precisely what happened, but what Ellen White says clearly is that Christ did not possess sinful propensities. Sinful propensities are in the mind/character - they may be transmitted through the body, but they are in the mind. They are wrong thought patterns, and they constitute the carnal mind. It's possible that Mary transmitted sinful tendencies to Christ, but what I believe is that these never manifested themselves in His mind.


If he had not sinned, his children would have been born the same way - naturally good.

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}


We learn to love others, but love for self is innate. Self-love (selfishness), in this sense, would be, as I said in my previous post, a concern with your own welfare and interests, having little or no concern for others. This can be seen in newborns. Fetuses are selfish in their own constitution, but I wouldn't say there are selfish behaviors before birth.


Tom, we adults are perfectly conscious people who have a lot of unconscious decisions/attitudes.


I'm speaking just about newborns, not fetuses. They have no interest in anything outside their own desires. They want to be attended to. Their natural instincts are to survive even if it's at the expense of others. Self-preservation above all else.

Maybe they saw one thing as depending on the other, but this isn't so.


?
I remember disagreeing with them on some details about the covenants and on the nature of Christ. Where I disagreed with them, I saw a disharmony between their view and Ellen White's view.


It's like the Bible. Doctrinally, you can't consider that some things are inspired and some aren't. In other subjects, the author may have expressed some concepts as he saw it in his time (like the statement about the pillars of the earth).
In Ellen White's case, of course shop lists, for instance, are not included among inspired statements. The same is true of historical details, scientific details, etc.


OK, but she didn't say that they were 100% correct in everything they said.


The problem is the strength of the temptation faced, not the kind of temptation faced (idols, or whatever). An external temptation may be stronger than an internal one. Christ faced the strongest temptations it's possible for a human being to face in all the areas human beings are tempted and, thus, acquired power for us to overcome any temptation.


The Bible doesn't say this. It says carnal nature consists in not being subject to the law of God, and Ellen White says this happens in our own constitution.

It absolutely is so. We should start a thread to discuss this.

A couple of points regarding this. First of all, given the messengers God sent to bring us the righteousness by faith message saw this as crucial to their message, who are we to dispute this?

Secondly, here's the argument they made:



Thirdly, their message was dependent upon their view of Christ's human nature. Merely being familiar with their message establishes this fact. For example, consider the book "The Consecreated Way to Perfection" by A. T. Jones. This book builds a theology of righteousness by faith point by point. That Christ took our fallen nature is foundational to that theology, which can be seen by reading the book.

Or consider "Christ And His Righteousness." This book develops in the same way. First Waggoner explains that Christ took our fallen, sinful nature, and then he explains righteousness by faith. The latter builds upon the former.



I've quoted them on many different subjects. The law in Galatians, that Christ's taking our sins impacted His temptation, the Covenants, and Christ's human nature are a few subjects that come immediately to mind. I don't recall your ever agreeing with any quote. I've quoted pages upon pages of their writings. I see no difference in terms to how you respond to their writings as if Ellen White had not endorsed them at all. You have given greater weight to a single endorsement of hers to Luther than the 2,000+ endorsements she gave to Jones and Waggoner.



I asked where she said this.



Where are you getting this idea from?



So that means her endorsements carry no weight, and we are free to disagree with them whenever we like. You give absolutely no weight whatsoever to their writings. They might as well have not existed as far as you are concerned. Do you disagree with this?

This is certainly contrary to Ellen White's wishes in this regard. Have you read what she wrote regarding this? The 1888 Materials?

If we accept her as divinely inspired, she was inspired on this subject as well.

Again, if you read her writings on this subject, you will see that those who opposed them then used the same argument you are using now.



Our most difficult temptations are the ones that involve areas where we are weak. Areas where we are strong are much easier to resist than weak areas, where we have a susceptibility and have fallen in the past.

For example, no one would be tempted to take a bitter tasting medicine. Instead, we're tempted to take good tasting things that aren't good for us. In your view, as I perceive it, Christ's temptations were like taking quinine, and not like eating ice cream (assuming that's a sin, for illustration purposes). For example, the temptation to be given the kingdoms of this world. That would be like quinine to Christ, given your viewpoint, it seems to me. How could the kingdoms of this world have held any attraction to Christ?



But only because He took our fallen nature and carried our sins.



This is an SOP phrase.



No it doesn't.



Because we have sinful flesh, inherited from Adam after the fall, we are subject to internal temptations. If we accede to these temptations, we participate in sin, developing a sin habit. Christ, taking our sinful nature, and bearing our sins, faced the same temptations we face, but did not develop a sin habit.