Prenatal influences are important as well. Our decisions are not just made on the basis of our DNA.

What this talking about? Please quote enough to know what the context is.

I've said on many occasions that "nature" can be ambiguous. That's why I'm explaining what "nature" means when I'm using the word. I don't believe that "sinful flesh" includes the mind.



I think that "sinful flesh" has to do with one's DNA. I think that "mind" has to do with the decisions one makes. I think when EGW says that the flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God she means that the mind controls the temptations which come to us by means of the flesh, probably from the brain stem, the "lower passions" she refers to.

Christ had the same DNA we have, the result of 6,000 years of sin, the same heredity that we share, the results of which are shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors. But Christ used His mind, which is capable of acting contrary to the will of God, to never do so, but to always say "no" to the temptations of His assumed fallen, sinful nature.

Tom, does this mean you agree with me when I say - "Unconsciously, unwittingly neglecting to abide in Jesus is not a sin. However, immediately after we unconsciously, unwittingly neglect to abide in Jesus we end up committing a sin. The two separate things happen nearly simultaneously."

By the way, I agree with you that consciously, deliberately resisting the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit is a sin. But I do not believe this happens while people are actively, aggressively abiding in Jesus. Do you agree?

My point was that because the Holy Spirit is actually doing something, which is to constantly calls one's attention to Christ, in order to disconnect, one must resist the Holy Spirit, which is sin. So one cannot disconnect without sinning. That doesn't make sense to me.

Here's a problem with this idea. Who's responsible for our maintaining a connection with Christ? Under your view, we are, right? I suppose we do this by prayer, Bible study, etc. So this is a work that we do. So as long as we do this work, we are OK. So our abiding in Christ is dependent upon our works, which sounds like righteousness by works.

What I believe is that the Holy Spirit is constantly seeking to draw our attention to Christ, and our choice is either to His work, which is a faith response, or to choose to resist, which is unbelief. There are only two choices: faith (which keeps the connection) or unbelief (which is sin). ("Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin").

However you define "nature," when Christ assumed the human nature He possessed a human mind, for every human being has a mind. And when we say that He had a divine mind, what we mean is not that He had a mind as God, but that He had a human mind controlled by divinity (as Adam's mind was, and as ours can be). However, human beings are not naturally born with a mind controlled by God, but with a mind in opposition to God. This mind is part and parcel of our sinful nature - and of course it's that mind - not our body - which leads us to sin.

The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked. {TDG 34.3}

I think the following makes the distinction well:



The mind and flesh are two different things. That Christ took sinful flesh does not mean that He had a sinful mind. It means He had flesh like ours, which of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God, but which can, and does, tempt us, as it tempted Him.

Nobody I am aware of who speaks of Christ's taking our sinful nature has the idea that this includes the mind. Can you cite even one person who has this idea?

I can see why you would be against the idea that Christ would take our sinful nature if you include His mind as part of sinful nature, but nobody else has this idea, certainly not Jones or Waggoner, or Ellen White, or Prescott, or any one else of that era; nor have I heard of any postlapsarians (or even prelapsarians) that have this idea.

Tom,
Most of the sinful tendencies we are born with are in our mind - not in our body. And, apart from physical impulses, what generates inward temptations are defective character traits.

Is a defective character trait a genetic thing? Would this be covered under the description of "sinful flesh"? In other words, I said "X has sinful flesh," would that mean that X has defective character traits?

Does "sinful flesh" include inherited sinful tendencies?

As I've said many times, character traits and tendencies are synonymous.

Each soul inherits certain un-Christlike traits of character. It is the grand and noble work of a lifetime to keep under control these tendencies to wrong. It is the little things that cross our path that are likely to cause us to lose our power of self-control. {HP 231.2}

Does this mean yes? It is your position that "sinful flesh" includes defective character traits and inherited sinful tendencies?