Yes, when Ellen White speaks of the transformation of nature, she is obviously speaking of moral transformation. Man is transformed in his character and in his mind. The point, however, is that sin resides in the mind, as Tom said – not in the body. Inherited and cultivated sinful propensities - selfishness, covetousness, pride, envy, etc. reside in the mind. Therefore, when a sinful propensity is cut away from the character, it is cut away from the life – there is no way it could remain in the body.

And Mike, angels are spirits, not flesh and blood.

Rosangela, I seriously doubt that's what Tom intended. He and I both agree that sin can reside in both mind (character) and body (sinful flesh nature). Remember what Sister White wrote about it in AH:

quote:

---

The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.

---

The flesh can communicate sinful suggstions and feelings, but it cannot commit a sin. Sin resides in the body.

Paul wrote, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom 8:3) The expression "sin in the flesh" is referring to the same "sin" Paul spoke about in Romans 7. "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Verse 17.

Since this same "sin" resided in Jesus' sinful flesh nature, it is clear to me that Paul isn't talking about sinning, but rather he is talking about the unholy suggstions and feelings that originate in the flesh and end up in the mind in the form of conscious temptations.

Regarding angels. Remember God is also a Spirit, and we were made in His image and likeness. This implies that "spirit" doesn't mean non-flesh and blood.

EW 54
I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist." {EW 54.2}

Jesus has the form of a man - flesh and blood. So does the Father, who is a Spirit.

Mike, I'm interested in the idea that angels are flesh and blood. Could you elaborate?

I liked the comment about God being a Spirit, and we being made in His image.

Guys, please, you simply are not being reasonable.

1) Tom, it is evident that propensities and tendencies are synonyms, and there is no way whatsoever you can prove that propensities refer to what is cultivated and not to what is inherited:

“Children are born with the animal propensities largely developed, the parents' own stamp of character having been given to them. . . . Children born to these parents will almost invariably take naturally to the disgusting habits of secret vice. . . . The sins of the parents will be visited upon their children, because the parents have given them the stamp of their own lustful propensities.” {CG 442.1}

“Because of sin, his [Adam’s] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience”. {13MR 18.1}

2) Mike, the lower passions have their seat in the body, but where? In the liver? In the stomach? In the reproductive organs? No, in the brain, of course, in the same way as the higher passions. In a different region of the brain, however, but in the brain, in the mind.

“The action of the blood upon the lower or animal organs of the brain, causes unnatural activity, tends to recklessness in morals, and the mind and heart is in danger of being corrupted. As the animal organs are excited and strengthened, the moral are enfeebled. The moral and intellectual powers of the mind become servants to the animal.” {RH, October 17, 1871 par. 9}

“This excitement is communicated, through the nerves, to the brain, and the result is that the animal passions are aroused, and control the moral powers. Reason is thus made a servant to the lower qualities of the mind.”--T., V. IV, p. 140. {HL 194.7}

That’s exactly why our mind must be transformed.

3) About angels.

1 Corinthians 15:50 I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Ephesians 6:12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Here is the rest of what Paul wrote about flesh and blood:

1 Corinthians
15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.
15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.
15:41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.
15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

From this we can easily conclude that the flesh of angels is not exactly the same kind of flesh we possess now. We can also conclude that the flesh we will have in the new earth is different than what we have now. But it’s all flesh – even God. Besides the fact God is like us in image and likeness, and the EW quote above, I’m not aware of other places that address the question.

The main point I was making is this:

quote:

---

Inherited sinful propensities reside in the flesh, not the mind; they are inherited. That which is inherited is passed on genetically.

---

The other comment was tangential. To clarify my thought, "propensity" is negative in connotation. One doesn't have a "propensity" to something good. At least, I'm not aware of EGW ever using the term in a positive way. "Tendency" can either be negative or positive. So "tendency" can be a synonym of "propensity" but not the other way (except in a restricted sense).

I wrote that propensity "suggests" something which is cultivated. That's my impression, anyway. I did a search on "inherited propensities" and found one item, which was the one you quoted. A similar search on "inherited tendencies" returned 78 items, so there seems little doubt to me that "inherited tendencies" is the preferred phrase.

Rosangela, I have not read where the brain (i.e., gray matter) is synonymous with "mind". The brain, as an organ, is part of the body. In particular it is part of the central nervous system, which is the means by which sinful nature communicates unholy suggestions and feelings.

Our five sense of touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound are aspects of human beings that are perverted by sinful nature. It twists our innocent and legitimate needs (i.e., appetitets and passions) and then communicates them, via the central nervous system, as unholy suggestions and feelings. It's a whole body process, involving every organ.

The "mind", on the other hand, is the seat of the intangible aspects of human beings. It is the conscious thoughts and feelings, neither of which are physical organs. It is where character resides and is developed. As such, the mind is not the same as the body. Sin resides in the body in a physical way. Whereas, sin does not reside in the mind in a physical way.

So, there are three things: 1) Body, 2) Mind, and 3) Sinful Nature.

The body transmits our innocent needs along the central nervous system as electral impulses. Sinful nature converts them into conscious unholy thoughts (i.e., suggestions) and feelings. And the mind is where character is developed as we react and respond to the voice of sinful nature and the wooing of the Holy Spirit.

Mike, this last post was well done. By that I mean well written. Nice job! Food for thought.

Tom,

quote:

---

To clarify my thought, "propensity" is negative in connotation. One doesn't have a "propensity" to something good. At least, I'm not aware of EGW ever using the term in a positive way. "Tendency" can either be negative or positive. So "tendency" can be a synonym of "propensity" but not the other way (except in a restricted sense).

---

I didn’t find positive references to either of them, which is not surprising, since man is basically inclined to wrong.

quote:

---

I wrote that propensity "suggests" something which is cultivated. That's my impression, anyway. I did a search on "inherited propensities" and found one item, which was the one you quoted. A similar search on "inherited tendencies" returned 78 items, so there seems little doubt to me that "inherited tendencies" is the preferred phrase.

---

I did a search on "cultivated propensities" and found one item, and did a search on “cultivated tendencies” and found 190 items, so it is clear that “cultivated tendencies” is the preferred phrase, but it is also clear that “propensity” does not suggest something that is cultivated in opposition to something that is inherited.