GC, it doesn't seem to me that you've addressed my question. Here it is again:



Here's a quote from the SOP that brings this out:



Please note she points out that Christ came with such a heredity as ours in order to share in our temptations. I'm not seeing how what your saying explains this. It doesn't seem to me, given how you see things, that it would be necessary at all for Christ to come with "such a heredity" in order to share in our temptations.

Here's what Ellen White wrote about innocent and legitimate needs:

"You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. (3T 84)

"Our foes are within and without. We are assailed by temptations which are numerous and deceiving, the more perilous because not always clearly discerned. Often Satan conquers us by our natural inclinations and appetites. These were divinely appointed, and when given to man, were pure and holy. It was God’s design that reason should rule the appetites, and that they should minister to our happiness. And when they are regulated and controlled by a sanctified reason, they are holiness unto the Lord. (14 MR 294)

I take this to mean our bodies produce innocent and legitimate needs (appetites and passions) which in Christ believers are able to satisfy unto the honor and glory of God. However, it is also clear to me that our sinful flesh nature intercepts these needs and perverts them and we become aware of them in the form of unholy "lusts and affections".

For example, we become aware of thirst and hunger and happiness as, Eat and drink and do this or that unto excess and self-glorification. But in Christ believers may chose to reinterpret such clamorings as, Eat and drink and do this or that unto the honor and glory of God.

I believe this is what Jesus experienced.

Here's what Ellen White wrote about it (notice she doesn't say unrepentant sinners are barred from heaven based on the unholy clamorings of their fallen flesh nature):


Again, she says, "When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life ..." Nothing is mentioned about the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh nature, nothing about hidden selfishness residing untapped and unknown within them. They are condemned based on the "unrepented of and unforgiven" "sins remaining upon the books of record" and not on the sins they might have committed because selfishness resided in them.

Tom,

Interpret as you wish. I seem to understand the identical statement differently.



This statement's focus is that of answering why He came. As part of the statement, it is brought out that He was willing even to come with our weakened heredity. But the focus is on why. Why suffer such humiliation? Why allow Himself to have weakened flesh, in contrast to His Kingly, perfect position? Why?

That is the focus of this statement.

What the statement does NOT say is "Jesus had to have weakened flesh in order to be tempted as we are." What it DOES say is that Jesus needed to COME, to DESCEND from His kingly position of honor, in order to suffer these things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now will you answer my questions, Tom?



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But the statement does say this. And not only this one, but many others. This was a very common theme at the time Ellen White wrote this. I could present to you dozens of similar statements. They are everywhere. It's not really possible to understand Adventism (at least, as it was during Ellen White's time) without an understanding of this theme.

Here's another statement from Ellen White. It doesn't use the word "heredity," but presents a similar idea.



The underlined part especially brings out the idea. Let's look at this more closely:

1.If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us.
2.Therefore Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are."
3.He endured every trial to which we are subject.

Point 1 brings out that if we have to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, Satan would cry foul. We can conclude that Jesus did bear everything we have do endure. Is being tempted from within, by virtue of having sinful flesh, something we endure? If so, then it's something He endured too. That's the logic of the statement.

Point 2 makes this explicit. There He was ""in all points tempted like as we are." This is again tying Christ's being tempted in all points as we are with His taking our sinful nature, which is another way of saying what was said in DA 49, that He took our nature after 4,000 years of sin and accepted our heredity to be tempted as we are.

Point 3 again brings out that He endured every trial to which we are subject. One of the trials we are subject to is being tempted from within. This is the trial the SOP tells us is most difficult for us to face as Christians. Given that Christ endured *every* trial, and that if He didn't bear anything that we have to bear, it's difficult to see how Christ could have specifically avoided the most difficult of our trials.

Let's look at another point of the statement:



This is very similar to the DA 49 statement. He took our nature, and passed through our experiences. What are our experiences? Does having sinful flesh have anything to do with our experiences? Could a being pass through our experiences without having sinful flesh, without being tempted as we are tempted?

Back to your response:



A first point of correction is that "weakened flesh" should be "sinful flesh." Ellen White never used the expression "weakened flesh." "Sinful flesh" she used dozens of times.

Looking at the salient part of the statement, we see she said:



This says Christ came with "such a heredity" (i.e. a heredity like ours) in order to share our temptations.

I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered my question. I'm asking why Christ had to have "such a heredity" to "share our temptations." Even if you interpret the "to" as "to the end that" instead of "in order to," there's still this unexplained link between Christ's coming with "such a heredity" and sharing our temptations.

Why did Christ have to come with "such a heredity" to "share our temptations"?

This looks like you're relying on a logical fallacy, the fallacy being that if unfallen beings can be tempted without having sinful flesh, then having sinful flesh has nothing to do with temptation. At least it appears this is your reasoning.

Anyway, these all appear to be rhetorical questions. I'm not understand what you would want in terms of an answer. Especially the last one. That's not even a legitimate question, as it's obviously build upon a false premise, one you know yourself to be false. It's just sarcasm.

I think rather than asking rhetorical and sarcastic questions, and desiring answers to such non-questions, it would be preferable for you simply to lay out what you think and invite comment.



Now this is a legitimate question!

The following is from the sermon of W. W. Prescott which Ellen White endorsed as truth separated from error by the Holy Spirit:



The answer to your question is that Christ is called the second Adam because as Adam was the representative of humanity, so Christ became the representative of humanity. As representative, Adam was tempted. And as representative, Christ was tempted. A point of difference, that Adam was tempted in sinless flesh whereas Christ was tempted in sinful flesh, like we have, is made clear.

Tom,

Simply put, your logic does not stand to reason. You say "We can conclude that Jesus did bear everything we have do endure." Was Jesus ever a paraplegic? Did He die of cancer? Did He have any sickness at all, especially the lingering, painful type? Was He ever even sick? Then did He truly "bear everything we have [to] endure?" No. And it was not required for our salvation that He should actually live every one of our lives. If it were, you might take a look at Buddhism. Reincarnation. Living out the life of others vicariously and/or in retribution.

Jesus was never called to bear a temptation to pornography, drugs, computer games, speeding on the highway, watch television, etc. I could give thousands more examples, but all it takes to topple your logic is one.

Of course, these points have been brought out before, and I have yet to hear an explanation from you on them.

Happily, I do not believe that "He endured every trial to which we are subject" means what you take it to mean. I do not believe it was necessary for Jesus to live my life in my place. It was only necessary that He live as one of my race--His own life.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, you're not considering the context! She said that Christ took our nature (or heredity, depending upon the passage) in order to bear everything that we bear, or to be tempted as we are tempted. She quoted the text saying that Christ was tempted in all points as we are. Clearly she was connecting Christ taking our fallen nature with His being tempted in all points as we are. What's the connection?

Also, returning to the question I've been trying to ask:



I'm not understanding why Christ would have to take our nature to share in our temptations, according to your view. Would you please explain that? The only attempt I've seen for you to answer this says that you don't think this means that Christ took our nature "in order to be tempted in all points as we are." But there's clearly a connection being made between His having a heredity such as ours and sharing in our temptations. So why was it necessary for Christ to have a heredity such as ours to share in our temptations?



GC, I've explained this many times. The short explanation is that Christ bore our sins in addition to taking our sinful nature. A. T. Jones deals with this at length. I'll see if I can find a link for you.

http://tinylink.com/?3lvsk2avYx
http://tinylink.com/?IJapXmNqrj
http://tinylink.com/?cj6Tn3TnYn

These sermons are all good in regards to addressing the question you're asking.

Anyway, your logic doesn't seem to work at all. You seem to be arguing something like: That Christ was tempted in all points as we are can't mean that He was tempted in regards to everything we're tempted to do, since He wasn't sick, etc. Therefore this phrase must be speaking in general terms, in classifications of sin. He was tempted in the types of sin that we are tempted in (e.g. lust of the eyes, flesh, pride of life), but not to commit the same actual sins.

The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't address the question I'm actually asking, which is why Christ had to come with such a heredity as we have in order to share in our temptations. Also why would Ellen White link Christ's taking our fallen nature with being tempted in all points as we are? Surely if all that being tempted in all points as we are involves a general classification of types of sins, Christ wouldn't have had to have taken our nature, or come with such a heredity as we have, to do that.

In my view, Tom, coming as a man, Jesus would have shared in our temptations whether or not He took our nature. Taking our nature was for a different purpose. It was to give him no special advantage over us as He lived a victorious life so that we would feel He could truly identify with us and so that we would be encouraged to see that such a life is possible with us too.

He could have identified with us anyway, because He is our Creator, and is well acquainted with every thought and feeling we have. But it would be difficult for us to comprehend this, except He actually walked in our shoes, among us. Just as importantly, He must live this life as a human, yet without sin, that He might qualify as our Substitute for the penalty of death.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.