I think she's talking about influence. DNA wouldn't make sense, right? I think she's saying that the wicked traits are developed and then transmitted by means of influence to the children. It's like when she explains that God would visit the wicked for three or four generations, and she explains that it's usually the case that children follow after the example of their parents.



I was asking for an example of a specific sinful neural pathway which one is born with rather then developing by means of a habit.



Neural pathway is developed. It's not DNA.



From DNA we can obtain inherited tendencies. These are not sin. If we develop tendencies to sin, that's sin.



Not sure what the point is here.



Not "fascinate" but tempt. You feel the temptation, but reject it immediately. That's what Christ did. This isn't sin.



Exactly. The mind gets involved, and rejects the temptation, and there is no sin.



That's "sin" isn't it? That is, when we're told that Christ bore the sin of the world, isn't this included? Or some sins are left out?



I'm pretty sure this isn't what she said.



I'm pretty sure she said pretty much the reverse of this. Something to the effect that people don't get the benefit out of Christ's temptations because of this reasoning.



He could understand the struggle because He bore your sin in your nature, and was tempted as you are tempted. He still understands your struggle (not necessarily with this, as this may not be a struggle, but whatever struggles you have, He understands).

I've to got to find something Fifield wrote regarding this. Hold on a sec.

Found it! Took a lot of searching.



This is what I was reminded of. This sermon is an amazing sermon. It can be found here: http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/article.php/20060825145326102

I was blown away when I read this sermon. I got the 1897 GCB to read Waggoner, and stumbled into Fifield.



It's not that simple. They speak their own words, but their own words express Satanic thoughts, because they are governed by the same principles Satan is. Also Satan can motivate them, their hatred, etc., but their words and thoughts are their own.



But this isn't the sum of His temptation. That is, if Satan didn't exist, it would not have been the case that Christ would not have been tempted. Not all of our temptations come from Satan, and neither did Christ's, as He was tempted in all points as we are.



I think it's really difficult, impossible really, to make the case (a case that makes sense), that everybody (SDAs) in the 19th century except Ellen White thought incorrectly about this, until SDA's became more enlightened because of the influence of other (non-SDA) churches in the 1950's. Until then the church fought against the pre-lapsarian ideas. We wrote books, articles, preached at the General Conference against these ideas, and Ellen White was present. It's just hard to believe that Ellen White would just sit by idly while Waggoner, for example, was arguing against the Holy Flesh movement in the 1901 General Conference session when, in reality, everything Waggoner said was wrong on the subject, while the Holy Flesh people were right.

Here's an excerpt of Waggoner's sermon directed against the Holy Flesh teachings:



Supposedly Ellen White stood idly by while Waggoner, Jones, Haskell and others uttered error after error criticizing the holy flesh ideas related to human nature of Christ when she knew they were wrong and the Holy Flesh people were right, even though she penned things like this:



It's hard to imagine she would do this.

True, DNA is blamed for a lot of things, when the real culprit is the corrupt heart. If one's heart has been transformed into Christ's likeness, then DNA is powerless.

First, an interesting observation: The topic is about "Christ's assumed human nature" and R asked about "man's fallen nature" but the response is about "flesh." I often see this "bait and switch" in discussions on this topic.

Let's talk about "nature" but including its use in inspired writings - not limited to the narrow postlaps definition.


In the way the SOP speaks of man's nature, the mind is involved in at least 2 of the 3 aspects.

When Jesus assumed fallen human nature, did He also assume the fallen intellect and the fallen morality? Since we surely have fallen intellects and morals, does God propose to change these aspects of our nature?

Yes, me too. When our pioneers spoke of Christ's assumed human nature, they all understood what was being talked about. For example:



The first paragraph is from "The Desire of Ages." The second is Haskell commenting. Haskell knew what Ellen White meant, as did the other pioneers, as they all spoke the same language on this topic, and all said the same thing. By now people understand Ellen White differently.

Ellen White wrote that Christ took "our sinful nature." I don't see how this could mean anything other than what Haskell wrote. If "sinful nature" included the mind, wouldn't that be a problem? A. T. Jones dealt with this by saying that Christ was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not the likeness of sinful mind: leave His mind out of it. I don't see any alternative to what Jones said, or else how could it be said that Christ took "our sinful nature"?



"Nature" can mean different things, depending upon the context. The question is what she meant when she wrote things like that which is quoted from "The Desire of Ages" above, and Haskell has provided the answer.

To me it’s obvious she is talking about sinful tendencies passed through birth inheritance from Adam to his offspring. Is it your contention that Adam transmitted sinful tendencies to his children only through his example?


“The great hereditary and cultivated tendency to evil with Judas was covetousness. And by practice this became a habit which he carried into all his trading” (MS 28, 1897).


???
What you are affirming does not make sense. I’ve just affirmed that there are innate neural pathways. A classic example is instincts. And, of course, when you inherit a sinful tendency, the kind of behavior correspondent to it is instinctive to you.


Again, bearing the guilt of our sins is by no means the same as being tempted by our temptations. Christ was never tempted to smoke a cigarette or to use drugs, but He knows the struggle of the cigarette smoker and of the drug addict, because He knew the maximum strength of temptation. Until I experienced suffering for the first time, I had no idea about what it really was, but after my first experience with suffering, I suddenly became familiar with the suffering of all people and could understand them. The same is true about temptation. If you have a weakness and know the pull of temptation, you know the struggle of others.


He didn’t have evil desires as I have. The desire I had of watching soap operas is evil in itself, but Christ had no evil desire. The impression I get is that post-lapsarians think that the more evil the desire, the stronger the temptation.

I agree with Rosangela on this point. Surprising, no? Let's zoom in on the crucial part:

We are told to crucify the flesh. Where should the focus be? She is clear: NOT the body. Rather, it should be in resisting the temptation to sin and expelling the corrupt thought. Both are centered on the mind, not the body.

The corrupt thought is clearly and obviously a matter of the mind. I trust that none will dispute that.

How about the "temptation to sin"? When Satan tempts us, will he achieve his goal of corruption if he merely succeeds in controlling our body to act a certain way? No. Physical action, of itself, is not sin. IOW, "the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God."

In order to fall into temptation in a way that corrupts, the mind must be enlisted on the side of Satan. Control of the body is not enough. Satan must gain control of the mind. In short, our will must contradict the will of God. The body, of itself, cannot do this. Sin is a matter of the mind.

When EGW gave details on how to crucify the "flesh," it was centered on the mind.

If the issue is damaged DNA, then my DNA is 50% more damaged than Christ's. Mine has 6000 years of damage, while Christ's only had 4000 years of damage.

And my ancestors were worse than His, especially immediate ancestors.

So true. The great controversy is over the mind, not the body.

She refers to Adam, but that's not the subject of her statement, right?



No. And similarly for parents today. Both cultivated and potential tendencies are passed from parent to their children, the former by influence and the latter by DNA. We don't pass cultivated tendencies by our DNA, right? For example, your former infatuation with soaps isn't passed through your children my means of your DNA, is it?



What's the connection? (between my question and this quote)



What's an example of what you're talking about? You quoted covetousness in the case of Judas, but I don't know what you're thinking. My understanding, in regards to human behavior, is that current scientific thought is that very little is instinctive. Did you learn differently?



The suffering is a good example. If you lose a child, that could help you sympathize with someone else who lost a child, or other relative or friend. However, if one was only tempted on the basis of being tricked, I don't see how that would lead one to sympathize with others who are tempted more deeply than that.

It would be as if your suffering consisted of something trivial, like losing a pet goldfish, or something like that. I wouldn't say that would qualify you to understand the suffering of others, but if you lost a child or spouse, that certainly would.



This makes the point I've been trying to make.



The stronger the desire to do the thing being tempted, the strong the temptation. How evil the desire is isn't relevant. I don't think anyone thinks along the lines of what you're suggesting.

This sounds like the following:



Are you saying something different than this?