Of course I'm referring to impulses, actions and reactions which involve feelings, not mere physical impulses like sucking a thumb. Little is known about intra-uterine life, so I will abstain from commenting on that.


Animals have "feelings" too, like jealousy, anger, etc.


Things are not so simple as that. The feelings of a child (although unconscious) can be, "Look at me! I am upset and I want you to do something about it!" This kind of behavior becomes more and more evident as the child grows.


If Adam had not sinned, would a six-month-old fetus have the law of God written in his heart? (I don't claim to know the answer to this.) Would a newborn have it? (Yes.) If so, then love would guide their feelings, actions and reactions - their passions. Today, selfishness guides it.


The mind cannot be dissociated from the body. If there is sinful flesh, there is carnal nature, unless the divine mind completely replaces the carnal mind, which is what happened in Christ's case. He had our body but Adam's mind.


This may be true in regard to physical addictions, but not in other areas. Or do you think it's your body which generates temptations for you to break the Sabbath? For you to kill? For you to steal? For you to covet? (Think specially about the first time you do it, not about sinful habits of the past.)


What you are saying is not true at all. You believe Christ had the temptations of a lesbian and of a pedophile. I don't believe that, as this is completely absurd. I believe Christ took on Himself the guilt for their sins, not that He was tempted with their temptations.
Using your reasoning, there is no hope for the woman to whom makeup, jewery, or fashion dresses, or soap operas constitute a temptation. Christ didn't need to be tempted with the very same temptations each person in the world faces, but with the same classes of temptations we face.

The text says that, with the "weight of the sins" (not temptations) of the world upon Him, Christ faced His own temptations.


There is no imputation of temptations. This makes no sense at all. A man cannot be tempted with the temptations which are specifically feminine, and vice-versa. Being tempted means being tempted to do some specific thing. Christ was tempted to jump from the temple pinnacle. This was a temptation which had to do with the pride of display. A temptation to use makeup has nothing to do with Him. (This idea would be laughable, if it were not blasphemous.)

What sort of feelings are you talking about? Feelings that a 6-month fetus thru newborn would have?



Which must be guided by either love or selfishness?




A newborn?



What would have happened from the age of 6 months to 9 months to have caused the law to be written on the heart?



But they don't love. They haven't developed that capability. You look to be arguing in a circle.

I'm asking you to come up with some definition of love, and explain how a 6 month fetus thru newborn would be capable of that. You're answering by arguing that if Adam had not sinned, then the law would have been written in the new-born's heart, so therefore it would be guided by love. But this is assuming the very thing I'm asking you to explain.

Define "love" however you want, and explain how a 6 month fetus thru new born is able to do that.



That has nothing to do with the fact that "sinful flesh" (or "sinful nature") is different than "carnal nature."



No, not in the case of Christ. Christ had sinful flesh, but not a carnal nature.



Even if the divine mind completely replaces the carnal mind, the carnal nature remains, because the carnal nature comes as the result of participating in sin. The reason Christ did not have a carnal mind is because He never participated in sin, not because He didn't have sinful flesh.




I just said that our flesh generates tempations. I didn't say it generates *all* our temptations.



It doesn't appear to me that you beleive Christ was tempted with *any* temptation we are tempted with. Did you read what I quoted from A. T. Jones? I quoted at length so the argument could be understood. He mentioned temptations from heredity and from imputation. Christ, from heredity, assumed the same sinful nature we have, and, in addition, He took our sins. So He had the ability to be tempted in both ways as we are tempted, both because of the temptations which our sinful nature generates, and the sins which come as a result of our having committed them. Jones went into detail regarding this.

And, indeed, these two things are the two things which make temptations difficult for us. We have a heredity that causes us to be tempted, and we have committed sins, which also makes temptations difficult for us.

It appears to me that you don't believe that either of the two things which make temptations difficult applied to Christ.

Neither I nor Jones said otherwise. Nor Ellen White, for that matter. She said it was His having taken our sins that made the temptations in the wilderness so difficult for Him to overcome. Jones went into detail about this.

Nobody said anything about Christ's having taken the "weigh of temptations."



Did you read what Jones wrote? Your response isn't making sense. It doesn't appear you read it.



This is so unresponsive to any I wrote or quoted, it's difficult to guess what prompted it. The only thing I can think of to do is to ask that you quote something, and comment on that please.

It seems that rather than dealing with the real issues being raised, your making straw men, caricatrues, and laughing at them.

Tom, not so long ago it was thought that newborn babies were simply a jumble of reflexes. Today this has changed completely. It's recognized that children have basic personality characteristics right from birth, and that they do have feelings. I'm providing the following links to articles which speak about newborn's feelings:

http://www.thewellspring.com/flex/attach...or-pleasure.cfm

http://www.thewellspring.com/flex/attach...l-developed.cfm

The Bible itself shows us that even pre-borns have feelings:

"For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:44).


In fact, as I said previously, we are loving or selfish from conception, since these things come to us as an inheritance. It's just that, since "heart" means "mind," perhaps it wouldn't be considered correct to speak of the law being written on the heart before there is some kind of consciousness. However, brain research suggests consciousness starts at six months of gestation, perhaps earlier. So it seems it would be correct to speak of the law being written in the heart of pre-borns this age.


It’s not a question of being “capable of” something. Love is a principle unconsciously manifested in one's actions/reactions, governing one's feelings/impulses. It's part of the character and of the personality with which one is born. It's part of who you are.


The Bible defines the carnal mind as an opposition to God's law. Ellen White says we are born with an opposition to God's law. It's simple. By the way, there’s nothing “neutral” in this world, spiritually speaking. We are either born with a carnal mind or with a holy mind. Which is it?


Please specify which temptations it generates, or cite some examples.

Ok, you said:

First, no human being on earth inherits all the sinful tendencies which plague the human race. Nobody is 100% good nor 100% bad. We are a mix. What is being claimed here is that Christ inherited all the sinful tendencies possible for the human race, which is absurd. And, if He didn't inherit all the sinful tendencies which are possible, it stands to reason that those who inherited the sinful tendencies which Christ did not inherit are without hope.
Second, saying that Christ had our "darling sins" or "idols" to overcome makes no sense at all. The fact that our sins were imputed to Him, that He felt the guilt of them, has nothing to do with experiencing the very same temptations we experience. What does the fact that the vanity slave is tempted by fashion dresses has to do with Christ? What I said is that He was tempted to vanity in the second temptation, not that He was tempted exactly like the woman who is tempted by fashion dresses. In His three temptations were represented the three classes of temptations which all human beings face.

I'm not disputing that 6 monthh old fetuses thru newborns have feelings. I asked you what feelings you were were talking about that you said must be controlled by either selfishness or love.



Ok, if you wish to push back the 6 month fetus to an earlier time frame, that's fine. In what way is a xygote loving or selfish?



But surely you can see that more than merely consciousness is involved here. Having the law written on the heart and mind is discussed here:



Having the law written on the heart and mind means saying, with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." This isn't something a 6 month old fetus, or a newborn, does, even less than that they love, something I pointed out many posts ago, and to which you still haven't responded. That is, I've been asking in what sense babies, or 6 month old fetuses love, and don't believe you have answered.



Only if we have a very superficial understanding of what having the law written on the mind and heart means, and similarly in regards to love. You don't appear to be considering morality in any of this. That is, morality involves the ability to make decisions. This is the same point in regards to love and having the law written on the heart and mind. To say these things happen to a 6 month old fetus makes these things all amoral. (i.e. not moral questions)

What is claimed where? If you're talking about what A. T. Jones wrote, then I would question why Ellen White would so enthusiastically endorse teachings which are "absurd." If you're talking about something I wrote, what do you have in mind that I wrote?



Let's see if I'm following your argument. Your argument is:
1.It's absurd to suggest that Christ inhereited all the sinful tendencies which are possible.
2.If it is the case that one is without hope if one has sinful
tendencies which Christ did not inherit, then those who had sinful tendencies which Christ did not inherit are without hope.
3.Therefore our hope is not dependent upon not having sinful tendencies which Christ did not have.

From this it follows that it's not necessary for Christ to have inherited *any* sinful tendencies that we have. I assume this is your argument, and your position?



This is what Jones is arguing, isn't it? What I'd like to establish is that you agree that I've correctly interpreted what Jones said. I'd like to know whether you're disagreeing with my interpretation of what Jones said, or with what Jones said.



Your idea is nothing, I take it? So the vanity slave should not be directed to find hope in the fact that Christ was tempted as (s)he was?



What makes the temptation difficult for the vanity slave are two things:

1)Heredity.
2)Past history.

I'm understanding you to say that Christ's temptations involved neither of these things. Basically your idea, as I understand it, is that if an angel from heaven were to take a human body that could tire and hunger, that angel's temptations (if it were tempted by Satan in the wilderness as Christ was, after having fasted as Christ did) would be no different than Christ's were. Is this a correct understanding?

I'm not seeing the connection in your thinking between Christ's temptations and ours, which I see both the SOP and A. T. Jones bringing out very strongly.

In its own constitution.


Sure. It means to be in harmony with God's character and law. Adam was created in that way, and his children would have been born that way. Naturally loving, naturally good.


I've never said they love, but that holy babies would have been controlled by love, which is very different. This is having a loving and unselfish disposition naturally flowing from one's heart.


Obviously the ability to make decisions comes later in the life of a child. This doesn't preclude a child from being naturally loving or selfish before that.

Yes, I’m referring to A. T. Jones, with whom I suppose you agree. Did she endorse Jones/Waggoner's writings or their preaching? And does her endorsement mean she agreed with 100% of what they said?


Yes.


With what Jones said.


Christ was tempted as (s)he was in essence, not in form. So the vanity slave would find hope in Christ’s second temptation.


I don’t think the strength of a temptation has to do with just these factors. A temptation is a combination of factors.