No. I understand this to mean that Christ took a sinful nature which was equal to ours, but when He took it upon His divine nature, it became different from the nature we are born with, but not essentially different from the nature we have after conversion. The difference is that Christ's humanity was always completely united to divinity, while in us this complete union, after conversion, is not achieved in a moment, but gradually. Thus, Christ has always had a mind in harmony with God, while we must "be transformed by the renewing of [our] mind." He has always had a character in harmony with God, while our character must be transformed.


First of all, I don't believe that the Christian, like the unconverted, can be tempted purely from within, without an external stimulus. Being tempted internally doesn't exclude an external suggestion.

"The apostle sought to teach the believers how important it is to keep the mind from wandering to forbidden themes or from spending its energies on trifling subjects. Those who would not fall a prey to Satan's devices, must guard well the avenues of the soul; they must avoid reading, seeing, or hearing that which will suggest impure thoughts. The mind must not be left to dwell at random upon every subject that the enemy of souls may suggest. The heart must be faithfully sentineled, or evils without will awaken evils within, and the soul will wander in darkness." (AA 518)

Second, I don't believe Christ had "evils within," but I believe that being tempted internally is to feel the appeal of something which comes from within, and appetites and passions come from within.

And third, the idea that Christ was tempted far less than we are is laughable.

It sounds like by "sinful flesh" you understand something like "character," or, something that at least includes character. I don't know what would be a good synonym. It sounds like it's far more far-reaching than what I think of when I think of "flesh." I think of flesh as encompassing what EGW refers to as "lower passions," (I think that's the term she uses); basically things which would come to our brain through the brain stem. Then the will gets involved, and the higher powers gets involved. So I believe Christ's lower powers were like ours, but his higher powers were different, but our higher powers can become like his as we are converted and become sanctified. But our lower powers never change, and neither did His. These are part and parcel of being born with sinful flesh, a descendant of Adam, a member of the fallen race.



It sounds like you mean "unlike the unconverted." That is, I think you mean that the Christian cannot be tempted purely from within, unlike the unconverted, who can be. This is what you mean?



One could be tempted from within by simply remembering something.



If one isn't tempted from within, there would be no need for training here. At least, not on the point of internal temptations, if these don't exist.



You're saying that Christ did not have appetites and passions, so could not be tempted from within? I'm concluding this because you say:

1.You believe that being tempted internally is to fell the appeal of something which comes from within.
2.Appetites and passions come from within.

I understand that you don't believe Christ was tempted from within, therefore, from 2., Christ did not have appetites or passions within Himself. This is what you're saying?



I agree, which is a difficulty I have with your view, as I'm understanding it. But if you don't believe we are tempted from within, that helps to explain things.

No one willfully rejecting the Holy Spirit is acting in unbelief. They are fully aware of what they are doing. But they are not guilty of sinning until the instant after they stop abiding in Jesus.

To me, "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" involves the whole being, since the body is just the seat of the mind. The mind is the main component of what is sinful in us.
Your character is just the result of your thought patterns, and it is your mind which produces your thought patterns.


EGW says children inherit some qualities of mind from their parents which are of a low order. Perhaps this means defective neural pathways. But neural pathways can be rerouted.


Yes, but reread the sentence. It seems correct to me.


Yes, but a memory is usually triggered by something (or someone).


Yes, but then EGW explains how to keep the mind from wandering to forbidden themes: by avoiding reading, seeing, or hearing that which will suggest impure thoughts, and by not leaving the mind to dwell at random upon every subject that the enemy of souls may suggest. Both are external stimuli.


No, I'm saying just the opposite - that Christ didn't have "evils within" which tempted Him (selfishness, pride, vanity, greed, etc.) but could be tempted by His appetites and passions, which are things that also tempt from within.

Yes, others have this idea. Not only do I believe that our sinful nature can change, but I believe it MUST change.


What does this transformation entail? "Death to self and sin."

Did "Christ's assumed human nature" require such a transformation? I don't believe so. Do you?

Logic demands that if our "sinful natures" need to be changed int Christ's similitude, Jesus could not have had the same "sinful nature." If His "sinful nature" was the same, then no change is needed.

Logic demands that if Christ took "our sinful nature," Jesus could not have taken a different "sinful nature" than we have, since it is, after all, "our sinful nature."

I think it's clear we're talking about two different things, which has probably been a problem all along. This is why I prefer the term "sinful flesh." "Nature" can mean different things, depending on the context. "Flesh" seems to be clearer. You wouldn't say our sinful flesh has to be transformed, would you? Our sinful flesh needs to be crucified. And this was the same for Jesus Christ, and this is precisely what He did. Christ bids us to take up our cross and daily follow Him. Follow Him why? Because He has also had to daily take up the cross of self-denial.

I don't think "sinful flesh" involves the mind, since the flesh does not involve the mind. From A. T. Jones:



It's clear that a distinction was being made between the mind and the flesh, and EGW makes the same distinction. She doesn't equate "mind" with "flesh," nor write that the "flesh" includes the mind.



It depends upon whether we're talking about DNA or not, doesn't it? You're not suggesting one's DNA gets rewired, are you? EGW talks about how we won't have holy flesh this side of heaven, and that as long as we live we'll have battles to overcome. These are the battles that Christ fought and overcame, as He also did not have holy flesh.



It can't be both. If it's "yes," that means "yes, it's 'unlike the unconverted.'" as opposed to "like the unconverted." That is, it seems to me you're wanting to make a distinction between the converted and the unconverted, as opposed to a comparison. It seems to me you're wanting to say that the Christian cannot be converted from within, unlike the unconverted, who can be converted from within, as opposed to the Christ cannot be converted from within, like the unconverted, who also cannot be converted from within.

Assuming this is what you mean, I disagree, for two reasons. One is that the converted have memories of that past, which can cause temptations. Secondly is the converted still have sinful flesh.



In order for this to be relevant, it would need to be the case that memory is *always* triggered by someone or something other than oneself (since, otherwise, the temptation would be internal). It would also need to be the case that if something or someone outside of oneself triggers a memory, that this doesn't constitute an internal temptation, even though the memory is internal.

Memories can be triggered by other thoughts. I remember things from twenty years ago while thinking about something unrelated. That memory can trigger a temptation. I don't see how you could argue this wasn't an internal temptation.

For example, consider someone who used to smoke. They think about some activity which used to be linked with their smoking, and they're tempted to smoke. How could this not be considered an internal temptation?



Your thinking is that it's OK for our minds to wander on whatever subject, provided the enemy of souls isn't suggesting something to us, or we're not doing something external, like reading a book, or watching T.V.?

I disagree. Our minds are quite capable of dwelling on any number of subjects which can leads us down wrong paths, without any help from Satan, and without having to read a book or watch a movie, or something similar.



You have said in the past that you do not believe that Christ was tempted from withing. But now you're saying that He could be tempted by His appetites and passions, which are also things that tempt from within. This is rather confusing. You're saying these are things that can tempt from within, but they didn't tempt Christ from within? Also, He was tempted by His appetites and passions, but not from within?

No one willfully rejecting the Holy Spirit is acting in unbelief. They are fully aware of what they are doing. But they are not guilty of sinning until the instant after they stop abiding in Jesus.