No, this is silly. The questions you ask below are clever, but they aren't asking if the law could be kept, but if it should be kept. That's a different question.

Obviously the law could be kept, as there were already quadrillions of creatures-hours of law-keeping to register this fact.



I agree these are also questions that needed to be answered, in addition to the question as to whether fallen man could keep the law.



The question was if man, after fallen, could keep the law at all. Christ proved he could.



Here's the quote:



Given this was said, how could "sinful flesh" include the mind?

As Jones points out, we should leave Christ's mind out of this. No one asserts that Christ's mind was different than what it was; selfish, or anything like that. It was His flesh that was like ours.

If our DNA determines the decisions we make, it determines our experiences as well. How does address the free will question?

Good question. A & E's was an unceasing connection with God - at the moment this connection was severed, they fell. Jesus' connection with God was always unceasing - till the very end, despite His circumstances and feelings. Since we are still growing, our connection with God is more intermittent.

As I said before, keeping the law for a time is one thing. Keeping it forever is quite another. His implied argument was that, sooner or later, you would arrive at a point where the law would conflict with what you perceived to be your highest good - at this point you would arrive at the conclusion that it couldn't be kept. This had happened with him and others and, according to him, would happen with every creature.


I'm not speaking of what Christ proved, bur of what Satan said he had proved. And of course, when man fell he didn't prove that "fallen man cannot keep the law." This makes no sense at all. The DA passage shows what he said he had proved: “In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed. ... When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed.”


Yes, leave Christ's mind out of this. What I'm asking is, Does man's fallen nature include his mind? Yes or No?

???
Our experiences is all that happens to us. What does this have to do with our DNA?

Here's our conversation:



What I'm asking is your answer doesn't seem to address my question regarding DNA and free will. I asked if our DNA determines our decisions, then how do we have free will?

Ok, you answered that we are not only our DNA, but we are also our experiences. Our experiences result from the decisions we make, and if our DNA determines the decisions we make, then it determines our experiences as well. This was one point I was making.

The second point is I don't see how your response addresses my question regarding free will (i.e., your response that we are not only our DNA, but also our experiences as well; I don't see how this addresses my question that if our DNA determines our decisions, then how do we have free will?)

Regarding #127870, if you interpret Satan's claim that the law couldn't be kept to mean, "you would arrive at a point where the law would conflict with what you perceived to be your highest good - at this point you would arrive at the conclusion that it couldn't be kept," that seems fine to me.

Regarding the second paragraph, Satan made the argument that fallen man could not keep the law. The "sons and daughters of Adam," from the EGW quote. Christ proved this to be false by taking fallen man's nature and perfectly keeping the law.



The flesh and the mind are two different things. The flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God. This precludes it from including the mind, because if the mind were included, this statement would be false.

What made it possible for A&E to sever their connection? And, how does it differ from us severing the connection? Also, is it possible to be connected, partaking of the divine nature, while simultaneously standing before God guilty and condemned because we inhabit sinful flesh?

Our decisions are a product of our personality and character (motives). Through our experiences, we learn the effects which result from certain causes, we acquire values, etc. These become part of our character and impact our decisions. But at a very young age, before we are exposed to all these things, our decisions are just made on the basis of the character traits and the personality traits we've inherited.

Here is the crux of our disagreement. Obviously the mind is included in man's nature. And of course man's "fallen nature" includes his fallen (carnal) mind.
Besides, you are misunderstanding the EGW passage. What she is explaining in the passage is precisely the opposite of what you are saying. She is pointing out that the word "flesh" in the Bible includes more than just the body, because the body of itself would not be able to act contrary to the will of God. She is saying that "flesh" is the same as "carnal lusts," and "carnal lusts" have to do with the mind, not the body. That's why the way to crucify the flesh is not by inflicting pain to the body, but by expelling the corrupt thought.