This is expressing what I was trying to say. Motivation is a very important thing, which I neglected to mention. Appreciation, closely related, is another.

Elle,

This enmity against Satan must be supernaturally implanted in all of us.
By choosing to sin, man rebelled against God and became His enemy, and therefore a friend of Satan. This is the condition in which we are born. However God promised, in Gen. 3:15, that He would put enmity between us and Satan, and so, as soon as we are born the Holy Spirit starts to implant this enmity in our hearts, but this work, in its totality, is just accomplished at conversion. However, after that the Holy Spirit must continue His work, or we will go back to our previous unregenerate state.
Jesus, however, was already born with this enmity against Satan. It was supernaturally implanted in His humanity and it was natural in His divinity.
However, even having already been born with this enmity against Satan implanted in His human nature, this couldn't account for His life without sin in case He had been born with sinful tendencies, because we have this enmity implanted in us after conversion and we still sin after it.

Have I made things clearer or more confusing?

Tom, your description is very vague, and I have the impression you can't answer my question. You ask me the very same question and I answered you. I turn the question around to you, however, you can't answer me.

Is our mind physical or spiritual? It comes down to those two entity.

The mind is physical. Our mind is a product of our brain neuro activity.

Definetly not clearer Was that supernatural enmity implanted in Jesus at it's 100% strenght in Baby Jesus and maintain through out His life? Can it be accounted for the reason why Jesus did not have a rebellious spirit?

I can understand that many things in a sinful human person like ourself, there's lots of work for the Holy Spirit to do.

Ellen White uses "sinful nature," "fallen nature," "offensive nature," and a nature "degraded and defiled by sin" to reference our sinful flesh. "Corrupt nature" she doesn't use this way. She did speak of corrupt principles, in the quote I cited.



I was just going by how Ellen White expressed things. Personally I would just stick to "sinful flesh," as there seems to be quite a bit of confusion in regards to "nature." (Not that there isn't confusion related to "flesh," but at least "flesh" isn't as ambiguous a word).



No, it's what Prescott said. When Paul says that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, he wasn't saying that the paying of tithes was imputed to Levi, but that Levi was in Abraham, and paid tithes in him.



I'll just say it seems odd to me that you say you believe what Ellen White wrote regarding Jones and Waggoner, but whenever we enter into a discussion involving them you seem to take the position of their opponents.



It was in the quote provided. Waggoner argued that Butler's argument applied as much to Butler's position as it did to his.



Yes, it is.





Here's a comment of Waggoner's which involves Ps. 51:5:



It seems to me we're rather going around in circles. You believe in original sin, so you interpret everything in this context. So if Ellen White says that Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinful nature, you consider "our sinful nature" which Christ took to be different than "our sinful nature" when the context does not involve Christ, because you hold to the original sin idea.

On the other hand, I believe Christ took our sinful nature, so the texts you bring up I interpret in a way that doesn't lead to the original sin idea, as this contradicts the idea that Christ took our sinful nature.

As Haskell put it, Christ's humanity was "fallen humanity, with its hereditary inclinations."

I also believe that Ellen White's endorsements of Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott only make sense in the context of Christ's having taken our sinful nature (as Haskell, Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott characterized it, as including hereditary inclinations).

If Ellen White wrote by herself, like on an island or some such, I could see the sense in trying to dissect her phrases without reference to anyone else, but given that she spent years of her life with other SDA's, who wrote about the same subject, this seems to me rather like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand.

The entire church was post-lapsarian; these thoughts were in our periodicals, our books, our Sabbath School lessons, everywhere. When the Holy Flesh ideas came about, these were met directly on the basis of post-lapsarian thought. I just don't see any sense in the idea that Ellen White secretly held a contrary view to the entire body of the church, and never uttered a peep about it. (Except supposedly in a private letter to Baker, which makes it even *less* unlikely she was pre-lapsarian, because the Baker letter makes it clear that the issue was important to her).

Also I mentioned that I became a post-lapsarian by reading "The Desire of Ages." Before reading this book, and before becoming an SDA, I believed in original sin (like you, the Protestant version). However, without studying into the issues we are studying now, or knowing anything about 1888, it was clear to me I had been in error. It wasn't until I had been in the church for some time that I was aware there was a controversy about this. It struck me as odd that there was a controversy as simply reading "The Desire of Ages," to me, made the issue clear.



Sexual attraction is a part of being human. It's neither good nor bad. It's simply a drive we have, like a drive for food. As we should educate our minds and palates to select and have a taste for wholesome food, so we should educate our minds and palates to select and have a taste for wholesome sex. But this doesn't mean that if one feels a desire for some forbidden food that this is a sin. For example, if you used to be a coffee drinker, and liked the smell of coffee, it would be natural to feel a desire to drink coffee when smelling it. Simply having a positive reaction to the smell of coffee isn't a sin.

Simply put, sin comes into play when the will enters into the question. As James puts it, "when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin." Sin is not given birth (i.e. does not exist) until desire has conceived, which is to say the will has entered into the question.

I'm curious, are all those on this thread who believe in original sin (Protestant version) in agreement with Rosagela, that if one is dating someone one intends to marry, and feels a desire to have sex with that person, that this is a sin?

Ah, of course, the french accident. Good one, Elle! And thank you for the kindness, Tom.

Well, I clearly failed in subtly implying that Froom in QOD was a tad wicked when it came to accuracy (please forgive the insinuation, Prof). Or, what Knight referred to as Froom being "less than transparent on the denomination’s position on the topic [of Christology] since the mid 1890s." (vx)

Dr. Knight, in the 2003 Annotated Edition, basically called Froom and his colleagues everything but fabricating liars. My, my, that must have been difficult, eh?

Not that you'd be interested, but Knight must have winced once or twice with such candid portrayals of the men whose theology he perhaps supported.

Try not to wince yourself as you read. Haha. (Italics are mine.)

Suspicion of the Adventist conferees having hedged on the truth of the traditional Adventist position is seemingly confirmed. (xvi)

It is much more difficult to justify the Adventist conferees’ presentation and manipulation of the data they presented on the human nature of Christ. (xvii)

The authors at times push the facts a bit too far. (xxx)

Thus Questions on Doctrines not only supplied a misleading heading [the one I referred to in my post], but it also neglected to present the evidence that would have contradicted the heading. (516)

Some assertions were less than straightforward and transparent. (517)

The authors of Questions on Doctrines sought to avoid those statements of Ellen White that Christ had a sinful nature and also to leave the impression that she held that he had a sinless human nature. (518)

The authors of Questions on Doctrines apparently were tempted to avoid some of Ellen White’s strong statements in their compilation and to provide the misleading heading. (518)

They were tempted to manipulate the evidence a bit. (520)

With those manipulations of the data and personal insinuations the gauntlet had been cast down. (521)

LeRoy Froom and his colleagues in the evangelical dialog had not told the truth. (521)

Unfortunately there does appear to be elements of a betrayal in the manipulation of the data and in the untruths that were past on. (522)

The moral of the story is that complete honesty and openness in all dealings is always important, no matter how uncomfortable the situation. (522)

Ouch. See what I mean? Every now and then I still wince for the poor geezer's undressing. Thank God He doesn't deal with us so pointedly and in public, eh?!

William

Tx William for clarifying.

I like the moral of the story.

What's all these "ehs" everywhere! Are you making fun of Canadians or you're trying to be one of us

No, no, just love Canadians, of course!

William

please elaborate on the appreciation part. my understanding is being fine-tuned and every little bit helps.