Ok, GC. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don't see that it in any way connects with what EGW actually wrote, or with the sermons (such as Prescott's "The Word Became Flesh") or workers (Jones and Waggoner) that she endorsed, but you're entitled to your opinion.

great post!!

MM, that's like saying I didn't sin, it was my sinful flesh that committed the sin. You sound like my antinomian father and his pastor.

You said, "I have no desire to eat crab." Does your "sinful flesh nature" desire to eat crab?

Do you mean that Jesus had a desire for those things that He was tempted with? For example, He had a desire to bow down to Satan, since He was tempted to do that?

However, the rest of humanity "had" sinful nature, not "took" it. Different from Jesus.


Why? Does "having" a sinful nature mean the same as "having" sin?

BTW, post-Fall Adam "had" sinful nature. No need to tiptoe around the implications. As far as post-Fall Adam and sinful nature are concerned, he "had" it without question.

The fact that you can't say that Jesus "had" a sinful nature should have made it clear long ago that what Jesus "had" was not the same as what post-Fall Adam "had" in terms of the sinful nature.


But it was also said that we have a problem by "nature".
That statement is true for us. It was true for post-Fall Adam. It was not true for Christ. Something that applied "by nature" to us and Adam did not apply to Jesus. Hence, "by nature" we are not the same.

Is it anything other than the mind that says Yes or No to temptations? What else makes this decision, apart from the mind?

Tom, are you saying that Jesus craved crab, as I did?

Did He ever get to the point of not craving crab? Or did He want some to dip in His vinegar on the cross?

The temptation wasn't really to bow down to Satan, right? That wouldn't even be a temptation to you, let alone Jesus. The temptation was to acquire the things that were offered by Satan by doing something which seems very easy to do.

I think had Christ not taken our fallen nature, He wouldn't have been tempted at all to bow down to Satan.



This is obvious. It is equivalent to saying the rest of humanity was not God. Different from Jesus.



Because some people might take it that way. In general, there's a lot of confusion on this subject. For example, some people confuse being tempted from within with having sin. Haskell had to deal with misunderstandings of this type when dealing with the Holy Flesh adherents. The same arguments and objections they made are repeated today.



No.



From the SOP:



Christ had a sinless nature, which was His own, from eternity, a nature which was also divine. Upon that nature He took our sinful nature. That sinful nature, also referred to as "sinful flesh," was identical to ours.

The reason for not saying that Christ "had" our sinful nature has nothing to do with its being different in any way from ours, but with the fact that Christ, in addition to being human, was divine. That Christ's flesh was the same as ours was commonly understood. For example, from "The Word Became Flesh" (the sermon EGW endorsed as "truth separated from error")



Incidentally, it's for this same reason that Paul says that Christ was sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that Christ was "made in the likeness of men."



Apart from partaking of the divine nature, we only have a sinful, human nature. So, of course, we have a problem by nature. Christ had to overcome the same problem we have of being tempted by sinful flesh, but in His case it was not a problem by "nature" but one by "incarnation."



That's correct. Christ's own nature was sinless and divine. He took our sinful nature upon that nature.



Right. Christ is divine, and sinless, by nature. He took our sinful nature upon that nature.



Correct. By nature Christ is God. That's different from us. We are not the same.



We don't receive "decisions" genetically. We receive flesh. The flesh we received is the same flesh Christ had. This is what our pioneers believed and taught.

Regarding how the mind comes into play, the following sermon by A. T. Jones explains this very well:

http://tiny.cc/ksuio

Sermon #17 discusses this.

It's possible Jesus' sinful flesh nature did not tempt Him to eat crab.

Being tempted to eat crab is not a sin. I'm sure you agree. What is not clear to me is what you believe about temptations that originate internally. Do you think it is a sin to be tempted from within?

Or, do you think it's even possible for sinful flesh nature to tempt us from within?

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.

Do you agree?