Of course Jesus had no moral faults. Nobody alleges this, right? (or did someone in the group you can't quote from say this?)

Back to my questions. I asked two of them:

a.Was Christ tempted from within?
b.Did He have hereditary temptations (genetically passed) to sin?

Rosangela says no to both of these. You say yes to both. And you say you agree with Rosangela.

A confusion, or, perhaps better stated as "lack of clarify which can lead to confusion," I see in many of your posts is not separating Christ's assumed human nature from "Christ." That is, you say things like "Jesus could not have been morally damaged" as opposed to "the sinful nature which Christ assumed could not have been morally damaged." I think everyone would agree that Christ was not morally damaged, as to assert this is asserting that Christ was amoral, or that He sinned. So the question is not if Christ was morally damaged, but if the sinful nature which He assumed was morally damaged.

So let's ask that. Was it?

I completely agree with what GC said. Yes, there is addiction involved here, and not only in these cases, but in all other kinds of sin which are committed more than once. The reason for the addiction is emotional pain, but there is addiction none the less.

what is the addiction? i know that there are people who are addicted to sex, but we are not talking about that here. there are different kinds of prostitutes, but speaking of one type, i believe if there is an "addiction" it would be to be mistreated.

as for the homosexual, for it to be an "addiction" he/she would have to be a practicing homosexual. a friend of mine told me one time that when he was with women he always felt like it was "wrong", that he was supposed to be with men. even tho he had that strong feeling he said he had never been with a man. whether he had or not was not really any of my business. he had been molested as a child for a considerable length of time.

so for the non-practicing homosexual what would you call that?

Same evasive answer.
Since "children received from Adam" this "inheritance of disobedience" {13MR 14.1}, or "propensities of disobedience" (13MR 18.1), these tendencies would fall into the category of what you classify as "genetically passed." But since these propensities of disobedience make us "not subject to the law of God," they constitute the carnal mind. Therefore, either Christ received no "genetically passed" propensities of disobedience, or He was born with a carnal mind.


Tom, this makes so much sense as saying that if Christ was not tempted to visit pornographic sites in the Internet, then the person who is tempted in this way has no Savior.
The fact is, only a homosexual can be tempted like a homosexual, only a gambler can be tempted like a gambler, only an alcoholic can be tempted like an alcoholic, only a thief can be tempted like a thief, only a murderer can be tempted like a murderer, only a raper can be tempted like a raper, and only a pedophile can be tempted like a pedophile. Saying that Christ was tempted in these ways is not only absurd but blasphemous.


Funny. We are tempted by the evil in our own hearts, we are tempted by our carnal mind, which I think you don't believe is the case for Christ. These are our inward temptations.


Look, you and I aren't even able to understand Christ's temptations, nor what was involved in them.

"The temptations that he endured were as much more severe than those which come upon us as his character is more exalted than ours." {RH, March 9, 1886 par. 13}

But you insist that He had to face the petty temptations generated by the perverted human character. According to you, it isn't enough for His temptations to have the same essence as ours (although being much stronger than ours), they must also have the same form.

Only if they were passed genetically. Not everything received from ones parents through heredity is passed genetically, which is why I'm making the distinction. Christ accepted the workings of the law of heredity. That is, the human nature He receive through heredity (genetically passed, "our sinful nature") is the same as the human nature we receive.



This is confusing sinful flesh with carnal mind. Christ did not have a carnal mind, but He did have have sinful flesh. All the "old guys" made this distinction. How do you think they made this distinction?



I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but it looks like its relying on some false assumptions. Consider how Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott dealt with the subject. They all taught that Christ took our sinful nature, or had sinful flesh, but that He did not have a carnal mind. You seem not to be making this distinction. Why do you think they did?



Right! A person who is tempted needs the victory of Christ, who was tempted in all points as we are. He needs a Savior who can take compassion upon the ignorant, who was compassed with infirmities. In short, a Savior who was tempted with the temptations he actually has, obtained victory over those temptations, and shares that victory with the one in need.



Then Christ wasn't tempted like any one of us!

Only a proud person can be tempted like a proud person, so Christ couldn't have been tempted as such a person.

Only a selfish person could be tempted like a selfish person, so Christ couldn't have been tempted as a such a person.

Only a presumptuous person could be tempted like a presumptuous person, so Christ couldn't have been tempted as such a person.

No matter what my sin is, Christ wasn't tempted like me. Not much consolation there.

Fortunately there's an alternative to believe, and that regardless of my sin, Christ was tempted as I am tempted, overcame that sin, shares in my sorrow, and gives me victory over that sin, the very victory which He obtained.



We are tempted from within by *both* inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil. Our temptations are not limited to cultivated tendencies. Christ assumed our sinful nature, and bore our sin. He was able to be tempted in all points as we are, and He was, and He obtained victory in all these temptations that we are subject to, and offers us that victory.



Sure we are, at least as far as our temptations are concerned. All of our temptations He experienced. In addition, He experienced other temptations, which we don't experience, and *those* are beyond our ability to apprehend, but this fact doesn't change the fact that He also experienced our temptations.



It's easy for me to see how Haskell, in reading this, would conclude that Christ took fallen humanity, with its hereditary inclinations. It's difficult for me to see why one would take issue with this conclusion.

It could be, for instance, an addiction to feeling that they are for some moments someone's object of attention or desire, even if they are used or mistreated, because this would work like at least a faint imitation of love.

As to the homosexual, he is addicted to his attraction to other men. Lacking sufficient maleness in himself, but still belonging to the world of men, he envies the confidence and masculinity that appears to come so easily to them, he wants to be like them, and they become his objects of desire. If he is not a practicing homosexual, he is addicted to his fantasies.

I'm just suggesting possible causes. There could be many factors involved in different cases. But nobody would repeat a behavior which hurts them, or is harmful to them, if they were not addicted to it.

a. Yes, Christ was tempted from within to avert the crucifixion. "Let this cup pass from me," was His prayer, followed by "not my will, but thine" as He surrendered His will to the Father.

Depending on how you define "from within," I believe that even though Satan may not read our thoughts, he is given the power to put thoughts into our mind. These are temptations from without (from Satan) which present themselves to us from within (in our minds). Jesus certainly was given many such temptations, as Satan worked arduously to cause His fall--yet, praise the Lord, without success!

Jesus did not, however, have the same forms of temptation as we experience. Only the same types of temptations.

b. No. How do you "inherit" temptations? Is the devil hereditary? If Satan, by your definition, is "inherited," then yes. Christ's temptations were of Satan, not of His flesh. His flesh may have been weakened by sin, but it did not contain sin. As we know, Jesus was perfect from birth to death, and before this and always after. He never sinned.

The best way for me to illustrate the difference between an inward and outward temptation is to use myself as an example. I was brought up in a good home where things like alcohol and tobacco were considered dangerous vices that one would risk eternal consequences for indulging even once. I have, therefore, never drunk alcohol, nor ever once smoked a cigarette myself (second-hand smoking not included!). Do these things tempt me? No. Have I been tempted to try them? Yes. Did this temptation come from within or from without? Certainly not from within. These things have never even been tempting to me, but Satan does still try me to see if I might have a weak moment in which he can gain access to my soul through these and similar vices.


Indeed. If Christ must be tempted in every form imaginable in or to save us, then He cannot be my savior, for I have been tempted by computer games, and He never experienced this temptation. Others are tempted to waste time watching movies on television, or soap operas, or cartoons, or even the morbid news. There were no televisions in Christ's day. Nor could He have been tempted to speed while driving, as there were no cars in His day, and it would be absurd to think there were speed limit signs up for foot traffic or horses.


The Bible tells us the exact manner of interpretation for the "all points" of temptation which Jesus faced. I think I already posted it earlier in this thread, but even if I did, it bears repeating here:


So, the "all" upon which Jesus was tempted are these three all-encompassing categories:

lust of the flesh (all kinds of appetites)
lust of the eyes (jealousy, greed, etc.)
pride of life (pride, fashion, worldly customs, etc.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

ok, i can kind of see your point.

i guess im so aware of the pain these people suffer i want to be careful to not make their situation seem trivialized-if thats the right thought.

yeah, i keep hearing this "tempted from within" and cant quite picture that. or "the pull of the flesh".

thanks gc, for giving me an idea, or at least an explanation even if it might not be quite accurate.

Being tempted from within means temptations that do not arise from external sentient sources, such as Satan. So to ask if Christ could be tempted from within is asking if Christ could be tempted without the devil (or some other evil being) explicitly tempting Him.

For example, if I pass by an attractive woman who is dressed provocatively, I may need to turn away to keep my mind pure. Could Christ have been tempted like that?

Regarding Christ's being tempted in all points as we are, a point that's often forgotten, or not understood, is that Christ bore our sins, in addition to taking our sinful nature. It was this combination that allowed Him to be tempted in all points as we are.

The SOP writes, "The enticements which Christ resisted were those that we find it so difficult to withstand."(DA 116) What are the enticements we find so difficult to withstand? These are the same things Christ was tempted to do. These temptations were difficult for Christ for the same reason they are difficult for us -- hereditary and cultivated tendencies to sin. In the case of Christ, of course, the cultivated tendencies were ours, not His. But, nevertheless, it was our sins which made His temptations difficult, just as our sins make our temptations difficult.



Let's look at some of the points, and come back to comment on them:

1.Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when he came to the earth to help man.
2.In order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was.
3.He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He who knew no sin became sin for us. He humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that he might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him.
4.The weight of the sins of the world was pressing his soul...He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and unholy passion...

Regarding Point 1, "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when he came to the earth to help man," this is both sin in its tendency and in its commission. Christ bore both in order to help man. His temptations in the wilderness involved both aspects.

Regarding Point 2, "In order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was." This describes the issue so clearly, it's difficult to understand how it isn't grasped. Where are we? We're in the pit of sin. Where do we need to be elevated from? Our pit. Where did Christ come to, in order to elevate us? He came to our pit. This is abundantly clear. He didn't hold Himself off from us, at arms length, but He came down to our level, where we are, in order to elevate us.

Now it wasn't necessary for Christ to commit sin in order to do this. It was necessary for Christ to take our sinful nature and to bear our sins.

Point 3 bears this out:

"He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He who knew no sin became sin for us. He humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that he might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him."

Note:"to the lowest depths of human woe." "Lowest" means "the lowest point; a point at which it is not possible to go lower." This is the point that Christ went to. Why? In order to reach me, because that's where I am.

Note again: "bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him." This is speaking of "degradation." In another passage the SOP writes:



Christ took our nature, "degraded and defiled by sin," and, in addition to this, He bore our sin. Why did He do so? In order to "bring (man) up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him."

Regarding point 4, "The weight of the sins of the world was pressing his soul...He realized the strength of indulged appetite and unholy passion," I think what people often don't realize is that Christ felt the strength of our temptation, that He was actually tempted like we are.