No. Because these are the only two meanings I see in her writings, and also in the Bible:

2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh [body], we do not war according to the flesh [the lower corrupt nature].


He added his own words and interpretation to what she said, and there is nothing indicating that “the two of them were formulating a strategy, and implementing it, to fight the Holy Flesh ideas.” Haskell wrote to her on Sept. 25, 1900. One week later, on October 2, he wrote the editorial in the Review and Herald you speak about. She answered to his letter on Oct. 10, 1900, when she probably hadn’t yet had the opportunity to read the Review, and in this letter she only made comments about the music and noise, saying nothing about the other points he mentions in his letter. There were no more letters between them, and they didn’t meet until the GC session in 1901, when she spoke about the matter.


Yet this is what she talks about when she speaks about Christ assuming our human nature.


Do you still ask why?
Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
The text doesn’t say “whoever looks at a woman the second time to lust for her...”


In practical terms, none. To wish is to desire, and to will is to desire.


Is this an argument to refute the holy flesh movement? How does it refute it?

They're not the same thing. Note what it actually was:

Note the "cannot sin" error. That's speaking of the CAPACITY to sin. And if you look carefully, many post-fall people impute that error upon those not in their camp. And I suppose it's understandable, since that makes it much easier to refute the "other guys."

Look at the other phrase I emphasized. The "holy flesh" error was about holy *flesh* doing holy *actions*. Holy *thoughts and feelings* are not problematic.

I think this is more accurate:

Holy Flesh

a.Christ came in the FLESH of Adam before the fall.
b.He would have been sinful otherwise.
c.We need to be like Christ to be a part of the 144,000.
d.Therefore we need to be rid of our sinful FLESH.

They were, after all, the holy FLESH people.

And here is how I would summarize my position:

a. Christ hated sin with a perfect hatred.
b. When He obeyed His Father, He was only carrying out His own impulses.
c. We need to be like Christ to be a part of the 144,000.
d. Therefore we need an entire transformation and renewal of our whole nature so that even our thoughts will be in harmony with God.

Rosangela spoke of the necessity of having hereditary tendencies to sin removed. I was characterizing Rosangela's position, which she agreed with. Are you disagreeing with Rosangela?

Regarding what you said, everyone agrees with that (even the Holy Flesh people would have agreed with it).

Regarding #110182, Donnell wrote:





This is what you believe, isn't it?



It's not right to say "he added his own words." This gives a false impression. He read what Ellen White wrote, and then explained it, the same as you or any one else does.

It's pretty hard to believe that Ellen White would not have been aware of Haskell's comments in the Review and Herald. The chance of this being the case is probably close to zero.

Jones and Waggoner, in addition to Haskell, worked along the same lines.

Haskell's quote demonstrates how Ellen White was understood by her contemporaries (Jones also quoted her on this subject, interpreting her as did Haskell, in a very public setting -- the General Conference session). Ellen White was aware of this, but made no comment, which is hard to imagine being the case given they were saying the opposite of what she was. It's even harder to imagine her being silent while Jones, Haskell, and Waggoner worked for months along lines she knew were false. Jones wrote a whole series of articles on the subject.



She speaks about Christ's sharing in our sorrows and temptations:



It's hard to believe what she had in mind here was that "these results" "shown in the history of His earthly ancestors" was that they became hungry and tired. Also that "to share in our sorrows and temptations" means "to share in our hunger and tiredness."



You mean you think it is a sin? *Before* your mind has registered what has happened, the mere thought of wanting to have sex, you think is a sin? Again I ask, why would this be a sin?



Looking to lust is an act of the will. He didn't say looking at a woman was a sin, but looking to lust.



I think anyone understands what "look to lust" means, and that it doesn't mean the same thing as "look."



The arguments that the SDA church gave refutes the argument.

The HF argument was that Christ came with a human nature like Adam's before the fall in a spiritual sense but like fallen Adam's in a physical sense. In order for us to be prepared for translation, we had to have a human nature like the one Christ assumed.

In order to counteract this argument, the SDA church argued that Christ came with a nature like Adam's after the fall, with all its hereditary inclinations.

I wish to make clear my position in case Arnold is not following the thread closely:

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

Ellen White here equates the cherishing of a sinful desire with sin. I argued that she couldn't have said "some sinful desire is had," so the verb "cherish" is here used to express the presence, or occurrence, of a sinful desire. I also said that Ellen White says clearly that the sinful/selfish desire is prohibited by the 10th commandment.
Tom is arguing that wishing something wrong is not a sin because the will is not involved in it.

This experience is available to believers the moment they experience the miracle of genuine rebirth and conversion. It is not something they achieve after months or years of sinning less and less. Nor is it unique to the 144,000. It is required of all who will be in heaven. None will be admitted without this experience, which includes people like the thief on the cross.

Yes, it is a sin when I have an unholy desire and it must be confessed. However, there is a difference between "having" an unholy desire versus an unholy thought and feeling tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus. Do you agree?

And, do you agree all temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings? If not, how, then, do you think people become consciously aware of the fact they are being tempted?


Amen! However, this isn't true of all hereditary and cultivated inclinations to evil which clamor for sinful expression. The other quotes I posted above make this point painfully clear. How do you reconcile them with the idea we are guilty in the sight of God until we rid ourselves of all sinful inclinations to evil?

No, I'm not. I asked you what the difference was between wishing and willing, and you gave both words the same definition, indicating there's not difference. Obviously if willing and wishing are the same thing, then the will *is* involved in wishing, since the will is involved in willing.

If having a sinful desire means willing something (or wishing), then it's a sin. If it means simply being tempted, without the will being involved, it's not.

No, this isn’t the totality of what I believe about this subject.
What does “holy nature” mean? As I said, besides the absence of sinful propensities, there are other elements involved in the sinful nature. Adam’s enmity against Satan was natural, and God made him righteous, so he had an intrinsic righteousness. However, “all our good works are dependent on a power outside of ourselves.” We will never be intrinsically righteous on this earth.

“It is not only at the beginning of the Christian life that this renunciation of self is to be made. At every advance step heavenward it is to be renewed. All our good works are dependent on a power outside of ourselves. ... The nearer we come to Jesus and the more clearly we discern the purity of His character, the more clearly we shall discern the exceeding sinfulness of sin and the less we shall feel like exalting ourselves. ... None of the apostles or prophets ever claimed to be without sin. Men who have lived nearest to God, men who would sacrifice life itself rather than knowingly commit a wrong act, men whom God had honored with divine light and power, have confessed the sinfulness of their own nature. They have put no confidence in the flesh, have claimed no righteousness of their own, but have trusted wholly in the righteousness of Christ. So will it be with all who behold Christ. {RC 260.4-6}


Yes, but what does she mean by that?

“But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. He breathed the very air man must breathe. He trod our earth as man. He had reason, conscience, memory, will, and affections of the human soul which was united with His divine nature.” --16MR 181, 182.


What she means is made clear in another passage:

“For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.” {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 7}


The verb “to lust” here is epithumeo, of the same root as the word “lust” (epithumea) in James 1:14: “But every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed.” You said that the word in James didn't express a sin. However, you admit it expresses a sin in Matthew 5:28.