Is this really what you meant to say? I would say the reverse. Everybody who willfully rejects the Holy Spirit is acting in unbelief.



I don't see how one could willfully reject the Holy Spirit without sinning. The Holy Spirit is God. Willfully disobeying God is sin.

I think they are different. "Flesh" is one aspect of "nature." So "nature" encompasses more.

Are you sure? Let's dig deeper.

Can He still succor us today?

Does He have the same nature today as we do? Or is His nature now something completely different?

I know that R already answered this, but here's my take:

A&E's pre-fall connection with God was direct and uninterrupted.

One difference is that our connection is often interrupted. This does not have to be, but it is. That's a big difference.

But a bigger difference is that our connection is mediated. They had direct communication back then. Today, all communication between Heaven and Earth is mediated through Jesus. No matter how holy a person is, he still must go through Jesus.

By this I do not mean that He is some kind of divine telephone operator, patching calls from here to there. Rather, it is in the sense typified by the incense of the sanctuary system. Our prayers must be mixed with His merit in order to be acceptable.

Jesus had a connection like pre-fall A&E - direct and uninterrupted.

How does this relate to RBF? Our righteousness, like our connection to God, is also mediated. It is by Christ's righteousness that we are righteous. And we lay hold of His righteousness by faith, not by any merit we have earned. Our righteousness is mediated through a third party.

I think it depends on the context. "Nature" (or even "sinful nature") means different things, depending on the context. I think "sinful flesh" has a more fixed meaning.

I agree (depending on the context) that "sinful nature" can encompass more.

I'm not following the logic here. I said that Christ must have taken "our sinful nature" since the statement says that He took "our sinful nature." What would the questions you're asking have to do with that?

That is, I said that Christ took our sinful nature, because of the statement saying He took "our sinful nature," and you then asked, "Are you sure?" and asked some questions regarding Christ's present human nature and His ability to succor us. Let's assume everyone agrees that Christ has a glorified human nature, and He is able to succor us now, since He can still remember what things were like when He was here in the flesh. Why would the question "Are you sure?" follow?

When the Bible speaks of living “in the flesh,” I don’t think this involves just sins related to the body. Besides, the Bible also speaks of the “carnal mind.” In fact, both words have the same root. “Flesh” is the name and “carnal” (or fleshly) is the adjective: sarx – sarkikos. So, although “flesh” is sometimes related just to the body, most of the times the word is used in a sense which also involves the mind.
Regardless of how one understands the word “flesh,” however, EGW uses many times “sinful nature” and “fallen nature” to refer to what Christ took. And “nature” certainly involves more than the physical. One of the main characteristics of our fallen nature is its sinful tendencies, and this, of course, goes beyond the physical and encompasses the mind (character). However, unlike us, Christ was born with a mind different from ours.


I don’t know how these things work. But EGW says clearly that these hereditary traits/tendencies can be transformed:

Natural and hereditary traits of character will be transformed. The indwelling of His spirit will enable them to reveal Christ's likeness. {5MR 132.3}



I said, “I don't believe that the Christian, like the unconverted, can be tempted purely from within, without an external stimulus.”
Another way of saying this would be, “I don’t believe that the Christian can be tempted purely from within, like the unconverted [can].”
I don’t see what is wrong here. As I see it, it wouldn’t make sense to say, “I don’t believe that the Christian, unlike the unconverted...”


It’s Satan’s suggestions which make capital of these memories. He may keep bringing them back to your mind. He may make sinful suggestions based on them.


Once a sin is really overcome, it ceases to constitute an internal temptation.


Perhaps you think that your mind is not being helped by Satan, when this is far from being true.


This depends on the definition of a “temptation from within.” If a temptation from within is something which tempts you because it’s part of you, then our appetites and passions, as much as internal evils, constitute internal temptations.
A couple of things to ponder: 1) EGW says that “evils without ... awaken evils within” (AA 518), that is, external stimuli trigger internal responses (at least in the case of believers); and 2) in all of Christ’s temptations related in the Bible, Satan was an active agent.

Arnold,
I was missing your contributions in these discussions.

We are all born with different minds.



This is dealing with our behavior, it seems to me.



The following would be clear:

I don't believe that the Christian can be tempted purely from within without an external stimulus, unlike the unconverted, who can be.

The way you wrote it is ambiguous.

At any rate, the thought is interesting. I've never heard it before.



I don't see how this can be right. Satan can't ready our thoughts. The temptations can't come from him if we're just randomly thinking.



You're saying someone who has given up smoking, who has overcome it, can't be tempted to smoke again? If this isn't what you're saying, I don't see why the scenario I suggested isn't something that could routinely happen.



I'm not saying that Satan can't influence what we think about. I'm saying this isn't always the case.

For example, let's say I'm an ex-smoker, and I'm thinking about a friend I used to have. And that friend had a car. And the name of the car reminds me of another friend. And I used to bowl with that friend. And when I bowled, I used to smoke. And this causes a temptation. Satan wouldn't be involved in this. He can't read our mind. He'd have no way of knowing that my thinking of the first friend would result in my thinking about bowling.



It sounds like when you said that Christ was tempted by His appetites and passions, what you really meant was that He was tempted by Satan.

Why do you think believers are only tempted by external stimuli? That's seems really odd to me. You must have thoughts that are temptations. If you do, you can give an example of one, and I think I could come up with a not unlikely scenario where you could have this thought without a direct external stimulus.

I think you understood what I mean. While our minds are inclined to disobedience, His was inclined to obedience.


We inherit tendencies of character, which are tendencies of behavior. But these tendencies are changed:

“A genuine conversion changes hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” {Mar 237.2}

“The change which must come to the natural, inherited, and cultivated tendencies of the human heart, is that change of which Jesus spoke when he said to Nicodemus, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” {PH080 43.1}

The behavior changes because the tendencies are changed.


From my experience, what I see is that when a sin was totally overcome, its memory can be dismissed without a temptation taking place. For instance, if someone completely overcame the smoking habit, memories won’t be a problem.
But sometimes a sin remains for a time without being completely overcome (these are what EGW calls “inward evils” or “idols within”) – like my problem with soap operas, for instance, or the example you gave of the ex-smoker who still misses the pleasure of smoking. (I’m not sure now whether this needs an external stimulus.)
Besides that, I think our appetites and passions make us always vulnerable to temptations (but I think that, for the converted, a temptation involving this would need an external stimulus/suggestion).


Well, there are 3 sources of temptation: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Obviously the world and the devil are external stimuli. As to the "flesh," I would say it depends. If it refers to the carnal mind, then perhaps an external stimulus isn't necessary. If it refers to the body, it seems to me that, for the Christian, an external stimulus is necessary.
I'm also basing myself on Christ's temptations related in the Bible - the devil was always present in all of them.