Nobody has suggested Christ has a mind like ours.



If Christ had a mind like ours, we wouldn't need the "mind of Christ."



You're saying the DNA changes? That seems to be what you're saying. I don't know how else to interpret what you're writing. If it's not the DNA, it would have to be behavior related, wouldn't it? What else is there?



By "not a problem," you mean, "not a temptation"? It's sounding to me like you're believing in holy flesh, or, perhaps better stated, your belief is that "sinful flesh" doesn't involve sinful things, but only neutral things, like getting tired. So the only thing that happens when one is translated, regarding the flesh, is that one no longer gets tired.

The following statement looks to indicate that Christians are tempted from within:



The following quote brings out that the flesh brings to the Christian a warfare that must continue until one is translated:





You're thinking is that if one is tempted to do some sin that has been overcome, then one hasn't completely overcome it? That's what it sounds like. I'm thinking of the definition of temptation which EGW gives, about temptation is temptation if there if one is strongly motivated to do a certain act, and one knows one can fall into the temptation, but one can overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm assuming you know the statement I'm speaking of. If not, I can try to find it.

So, using that definition, that one is tempted when one is strongly motivated to do a wrong act (or words to this effect), you don't believe a sin is completely overcome, unless one is not tempted to do that sin (except by Satan, or an agent of his, in which case the temptation does not involve any desire to do the given act, but involves a trick of some sort of Satan).



What's an example of an external stimulus, besides Satan or an agent of his? Why wouldn't a memory of this same stimulus cause a temptation? For the brain, there's no difference. I don't understand why you're making a distinction here.



This isn't obvious.





We're not talking about the carnal mind. Christ didn't take a carnal mind. We're just talking about what Christ assumed.



I'm asking why you think this. I don't see how you can distinguish between an external stimulus and the memory of that same stimulus.



We go could at this from the other direction just as well. That is, Christ was tempted in all points as we are. How are we tempted? Only by the devil? If any of our temptations do not involve the devil, then not all of Christ's temptations involved the devil.

Tom,
If we don’t even know how tendencies are transmitted, how can we know how they are changed? However, EGW says that they can be changed. As I said, if we are born with defective neural pathways, neural pathways can be rerouted.
It doesn’t seem to me that character tendencies are transmitted through the DNA. As I’ve pointed out in previous discussions, if this was the case, Adam could never have transmitted sinful tendencies to his children, since he transmitted to them acquired tendencies, not inherited tendencies.


I know many people who completely overcame a habit and who don’t consider it a temptation any longer. For instance, I used to like alcoholic beverages, meat, dancing. I remember the pleasurable sensations of drinking beer, or of eating fried fish, or of dancing. However, they don’t constitute a temptation to me any longer. I’m not “strongly motivated” to do any of these things.


From my experience, I would say yes. Despite my resolution to not do it, I was “strongly motivated” to watch soap operas until I really overcame the habit.
You should remember that our appetites and passions do not constitute sins in themselves, and that they can’t be “overcome”; they should be controlled. However, the wrong use of these passions constitutes sin and must be overcome. For instance, would you say that a pedophile who is “strongly motivated” to repeat his former behavior has really overcome his habit?


Because, as I said, a memory can be repelled; this is not always true of an external stimulus. Joseph comes to mind.


Yes, Christ didn’t have “inward evils,” “idols within” to overcome; we do, even being Christians, because transformation of nature is a gradual process.


First, Christ didn’t even have the memory of past sins to tempt Him. Second, there is no temptation of Christ related in the Bible which doesn’t involve the devil – even those which involved His thoughts. And third, as I said in my post #128320, being tempted from within doesn’t necessarily exclude an external stimulus.

We know how they're transmitted. Why do you think we don't? The behavior tendencies we have are changed as we develop new habits.



We develop the neural pathways by our habits.



This doesn't make sense to me. You're saying Adam transmitted to them acquired tendencies, not inherited tendencies? What does that mean?



Sure, that can happen, but is it necessary? That is, if one always steadfastly refused to participate in some type of behavior, even though one is tempted to do that behavior, does that mean the sin hasn't been overcome? To overcome a sin means you can't be tempted to do it?



A pedophile is a good example of this, I think. I think a converted pedophile would take steps to avoid situations that would tempt him. For example, he could avoid certain locations, or web sites, etc. The pedophile, however, could be tempted by something outside of his control (some eternal stimulus, or a memory). If the pedophile turned away from that, chose to reject the thought, I don't think he would be committing any sin, nor would such behavior mean that he hadn't overcome the sin.



I asked for an example of an external stimulus, besides Satan or an agent of his. I asked why a memory of this same stimulus wouldn't cause a temptation. I don't see how your response addresses either of these questions.



Why does this matter to our discussion?



We are tempted by having sinful flesh, and by having committed sin. Christ assumed our sinful nature, and bore our sin. He had the whole package, as far as temptation is concerned, and was able to be tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.



By "the devil" are you including people? If you're not including people, this isn't a true statement. Also, Christ's temptations on the cross involved his thoughts, as the psalms, for example, make clear. It doesn't say that Satan was involved in all of these thoughts. To name just one psalm, consider psalm 22.



If a temptation from within includes temptations which involve external stimuli, than all temptations are temptations from within.

I thought you might need some backup.

It looks like I'm going to have some extra time on my hands, so I can be here a little more. Plus, the relationship between Christ's incarnation and RBF is a topic of great interest to me, and is a big reason, if not the biggest reason, why I'm not postlaps. I hope to have some time to flesh that out soon.

Good. Your posts are food for thought - and for discussion.

?
What proof is there that they are transmitted through the DNA, as you believe? None whatsoever.
Cultivated tendencies cannot alter the DNA, yet cultivated tendencies are transmitted to children. How do you explain that?

“If Satan can persuade people to follow a course that is contrary to the principles underlying and running through every enactment of God's law, he has a chance to work upon their minds. One venturesome step in deceptive practises, under the specious direction of Satan, leads to a second such step. Those who follow this course depart from God. ... The mind becomes more and more infatuated, and the power to overcome temptation is destroyed. The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family.” {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}


Sure. Some of them. But there are innate and acquired neural pathways. Some pathways are already developed at birth.


If someone is tempted to follow a sinful tendency, it’s because that sinful tendency wasn’t yet completely changed. This is not uncommon in the Christian’s life. However, if you remain forever in this condition in relation to the same sin, you are in slavery, not freedom. Like in my problem with soap operas. Loving something and being unable to do it is torment. Besides, sooner or later you end up falling into that sin, since it’s a weak point. This could never be called victory.


An example of an external stimulus: something you see or hear (intentionally or not). A memory of this same stimulus can cause a temptation - the temptation to continue thinking about it. If you continue thinking about it, you have another temptation: the temptation to do it. So, with the memory, you can stop with the first temptation - the temptation to continue thinking about it. With the external stimulus, you don't always have the option to repel it instantly - like in the case of Joseph. So you are tempted to do it.


Because you insist that Christ must have assumed everything we must fight against.


This is not true and never will be. Bearing the guilt of our sins and being tempted by the memory of past sins are two things so far apart from each other as the east and the west.


When people mocked Christ, they were being inspired by Satan. Besides, Satan took the words of people and suggested thoughts to Christ’s mind.

He [Christ] was struggling with the power of Satan, who was declaring that he had Christ in his power, that he was superior in strength to the Son of God, that the Father had disowned His Son, and that He was no longer in the favor of God any more than himself.--2T 214. {TA 202.4}


“Temptation from within” isn’t a term clearly defined, however, it seems to me, as I said previously, that temptations from without are those based in the world and the devil, and temptations from within are those based in the flesh, for the flesh is part of what you are. “Flesh” here might refer either to the body or to the carnal mind. Christ’s temptations in this respect were based in His body (appetites and passions), but not in a carnal mind.

Cultivated tendencies are transmitted either by DNA, through the womb, or by the influence (example) of parents upon their children.



What's a specific example of something your thinking of? (Specific would be "sucking one's thumb" as opposed to "being selfish," which isn't specific).[/quote]



This could be genetic though, in the DNA. This doesn't change until translation.



I'd agree with this. Waggoner writes:



However, while "loving" something, and wanting to do it, but not doing so because one is afraid of the consequences could hardly be called "victory," I don't see how this would preclude a person who had given up smoking from having a memory which triggers a temptation to smoke. I don't see anything in inspiration which requires that in order to overcome a sin we have to not be able to be tempted to do that sin.



This is what I was saying. What were you disagreeing with?



He bore our sins and took our sinful nature. What's left out?



Scripture doesn't say that Christ "bore the guilt of our sins" but that Christ "bore our sins." Of course, bearing our sins involves bearing the guilt of our sins, but that's not all. For example, EGW writes that what made Christ's temptations in the dessert so difficult is that He was bearing our sins.



By saying that, "there is no temptation of Christ related in the Bible which doesn’t involve the devil" you're not only including people, but thoughts that Christ had. Well, if the devil includes people and thoughts, I can't disagree that all temptations that Christ had in Scripture involved the devil, as how could this be disproved? I'd have to find some temptation Christ had that didn't involve His thoughts.



I don't think anybody thought in these terms in the 19th century. That is, I can't think of anyone who thought of the "flesh" as including the carnal mind. Indeed, I've already quoted to you from A. T. Jones that they did NOT think that way.

Here's a quote from Haskell:



The first paragraph is from "The Desire of Ages." The second is Haskell's comment. This is an example of the thought.

The context makes clear that the passage isn’t speaking of the womb or of influence. So, again, if cultivated tendencies cannot alter the DNA, how could they be transmitted through the DNA?


All instincts, but let’s speak about the need to suckle. On thinking about this, I realized that people are born with this instinct, but it naturally ceases to exist later in life.


It must change. The neural pathway ceases to be used, just like in the case of any habit acquired later in life. There is no difference between inherited and cultivated tendencies. Memories about both will remain. The possibility of reviving the habit will remain for both.


It doesn’t preclude the occurrence of a temptation triggered by a memory, but when you have really overcome the tendency, the memory of it will no longer fascinate you. You will be able to see that the pleasure offered by the temptation brings suffering in its train.


I’m too lazy to read everything again in order to find out.


“Inward evils” and “idols within.”


The anguish for bearing the guilt of our sins made the temptations even worse. But Christ’s temptations in the desert were His temptations, not ours. Christ wasn’t tempted to watch soap operas, but He knows what it is to be strongly motivated to do something which is against God’s will, so He could understand my struggle.


If people are being Satan’s instruments, like the serpent or Eve, or people around the cross, they are just speaking Satan’s words. As to thoughts, I’m referring to the thoughts suggested by Satan in the Gethsemane and on the cross, which Ellen White describes in detail.


Yes, I know. But I believe that this position can be defended by both the Bible and EGW. In Romans 8:1, 4, 5, 12, 13; 2 Cor. 10:3, 2 Pet. 2:10, the expression “according to the flesh” means “according to the carnal mind”.

Here's the last part of that quote:
It seems to say that cultivated tendencies are transmitted the same way that Adam's disobedience was transmitted.

You gave three possibilities:
1) DNA
2) the womb
3) by influence/example

When Adam disobeyed, there was nobody in the womb, so that's not the way. At the time, there was nobody to influence or give an example to, so that's not the way. The only way left is DNA.

So are you saying that when we cultivate sin, our DNA is changed in a way that is passed on to our children? IOW, the flesh can be changed by our sinful choices, right?

We are told that where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. If sin can degrade, is it too hard to believe that grace can uplift? If sin can corrupt the nature, isn't it possible that grace can redeem it? I believe it can. That's one reason why I'm not postlaps - postlaps only see the power of sin to ruin, but not the power of grace to restore. RBF is all about the power of grace to save us from even the lowest depths of sin.

One more thing: "Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family." She did not say a "tendency" to disobedience was transmitted. She did not say a "weakness" was transmitted. It was "disobedience" that was transmitted. Such is our inheritance from our father. Did Jesus have the same inheritance from His Father?

Furthermore, disobedience always comes with death. Hence, our inheritance from Adam - not through the womb or by example, but by DNA (if you are correct) - is condemnation and death. Did Jesus have the same inheritance?

Jesus was righteous, and we are called to be righteous. But how? Is it righteousness by imitation? Is it righteousness by replication? No, it is righteousness by faith.

When Adam sinned, his DNA was perfect, as was the DNA of Kain when he murdered his brother. Therefore DNA also can not be related to the causes of sin. Popular media likes to play the game "overstate the importance of DNA". There is no good reason to follow that lead.