asgyo, regarding 129040 and 129041, Haskell said:



EGW said that Christ took "our sinful nature." The point of discussion has been in what this sinful nature consists. Rosangela, as I've understood her, has been arguing that this includes the mind. I've been arguing that what "sinful nature" or "sinful flesh" consists of is just what Haskell wrote.

Here are two, one current and one from a few years ago:


Gregory and LK both disagreed with the idea that Jesus was different from us from the neck up. As LK said in a sermon, "I do most of my thinking from the neck up. I do most of my decision making from the neck up."

Here's another quote:

So you're thinking that LK would disagree with what A. T. Jones wrote?



I doubt this (that he would disagree with this). IIRC, you've said you've had contact with him. Perhaps you could ask him. I think he would agree with Jones.

Just time for a quickie...


You see what I saw. It certainly did seem like he was disagreeing with Jones. I brought that to his attention a week or two after he gave the sermon, IIRC. I asked him, since he said Jesus was like us from the neck down AND from the neck UP, how can there be a difference since there's no place left? He did not answer, and has not answered it to this day. That was several years ago.

If I had simply misunderstood what he said, that's just a quickie response. But it seems his answer requires quite a bit of contemplation.

In any case, he said what he said. You think he would agree with Jones, but that contradicts his own words, which he has published and not recanted. So the current status is that LK teaches that Jesus was like us from the neck up, as Gregory taught.

The statement says, "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}
How are cultivated tendencies transmitted to the offspring? How was Adam's disobedience (a cultivated tendency) transmitted to the human family?


This one is new to me. Could you define "potential tendencies"?


Curiously, some affirm there is a genetic linkage:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/162833/the_7_warning_signals_of_soap_opera.html?cat=39
Anyway, yes, I believe cultivated tendencies are transmitted as a birth inheritance, although I don’t see how this can be done by means of the DNA.


“There is a lack of consensus on a precise definition of instinct and what human behaviors may be considered instinctual. More confining definitions argue that for a behavior to be instinctual it must be automatic, irresistible, triggered by environmental stimuli, occur in all members of a species, unmodifiable, and not require training. Based on these rigorous criteria, there is no instinctual human behavior. Likewise, some sociologists consider instincts to be innate behaviors that are present in all members of a species and cannot be overridden (Robertson 1989), but since even the drives of sex and hunger can be overridden, this definition also leads to the view that humans have no instincts. On the other hand, other individuals consider certain human behaviors to be instinctual, such as instinctive reflexes in babies (such as fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), since they are free of learning or conditioning, as well as such traits as altruism and the fight or flight response. The concept is still hotly debated.”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Instinct
However, I’m using “instinct” just in the sense of “the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.” In this sense, inherited tendencies are instinctive.


All temptations involve tricks, since a temptation is inherently a trick. And, as I said in previous discussions, the strength of a temptation has to do with several factors.


Again, feeling the guilt and sinfulness of sin is something completely different from facing a temptation. The wicked will be feeling enormous guilt for their own sins on the great judgment day, but they will be facing no temptation.


Sinful tendencies involve evil desires. So, if you think Christ must have had sinful tendencies in order to understand the true force of temptation, it’s because you think that evil desires are stronger than non-evil desires.

Is inheriting "sinful tendencies" at conception the same thing as acting them out in thought, word, or deed?

Are we guilty and condemned because we inherited them or because we act them out?

What if we experience rebirth, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and thereby refuse to act them out - are we guilty and condemned?

No.


What about the statement that "human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God" {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}?


We are covered by Christ's righteousness.

Do you have any quotes to support your answer?


God does not condemn what we are; instead, He condemns what we think, say, and do (if it is sinful). Compare what Ellen wrote about condemnation:


Condemning depraved human nature is not the same thing as condemning sinful thoughts, words, and behavior. Sinful flesh is what we have, it is not what we are. Choices result in character, and character defines what we are. In judgment it is character that determines our eternal destiny - not sinful flesh.


Please explain. Are you suggesting Christ's righteousness covers our sinful flesh nature and, for this reason, we are not guilty and condemned? And, if were not so, having sinful flesh would make us guilty and condemned and, for this reason, experiencing the fruits of Spirit and refusing to act out the unholy desires of sinful flesh would make no difference?

?
Isn't this self-evident? That is, that inheriting a sinful tendency is not the same thing as acting it out?


What we are dictates how we think. We start thinking wrong because our nature is wrong in the first place. "Men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush" (Luke 6:44). How would God condemn what we think without condemning what we are?

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}


We are born with a character, as Adam was created with a character, and the character with which we are born is in opposition to the divine will.

"Human nature is vile, and man's character must be changed before it can harmonize with the pure and holy in God's immortal kingdom. This transformation is the new birth." {ST, November 15, 1883 par. 15}

By the way, that's why a baby is born in need of being born again.


Yes. Christ's righteousness must cover our sinful nature:

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law. Man is accepted through the righteousness of Christ, through obedience to God's law. God imputes beauty, excellence, and perfection to man through the merits of his Son." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

Rosangela, thank you for answering my questions clearly and plainly. If you don't mind, I have a couple more. If sinful flesh and sinful character are one and the same thing, it follows, then, that what makes us guilty and condemned is something we inherited at conception, namely, sinful flesh/character. Thus, we are guilty and condemned the instant we are conceived, before we are born, before we begin cultivating character. If so, how does this differ from the false theory that we are conceived guilty and condemned based on Adam's sin?

A few more questions. Do we retain sinful flesh/character after we experience rebirth? Or, is it transformed and ceases tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus?

If we retain it, does it cease tempting us? If not, does the fact it continues to tempt us make us guilty and condemned?