Arnold, just an explanation. When I said God does not condemn us for our sinful tendencies/traits, I meant before the age of accountability, or before we become conscious of them.

R,

I agree with what you said. We are not condemned for sins of ignorance, including our natural selfishness, because God has provided a solution - Christ's sacrifice. I don't have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that selfishness is acceptable to God as long as you can prevent your body from acting it out.

Yes, I agree we begin sinning by default the moment we are capable of consciousness.


Are you suggesting sinful flesh nature and sinful character are one and the same thing?


Please name some inherited sinful traits of character adults cultivate (act out) without realizing they are sinning, sinful traits of character which are covered by the atoning blood of Jesus and will not, therefore, count against them in judgment.


I mean character cannot consist of sinful and sinless traits. It is either altogether sinful or altogether sinless.


Wouldn't that imply babies are born with sinful and sinless traits of character?


Sort of. I understand you believe the sinful character we inherit and act out from birth will not count against us in judgment (if we are ignorant of wrongdoing) because the blood of Jesus covers all such sins. As you say, only the sinful character we ourselves cultivate (knowing full well we are guilty of wrongdoing) will condemn us in judgment.

I agree the blood of Jesus covers sins of ignorance. And, I agree nothing we inherit will condemn us in judgment; however, I do not believe it's because the blood of Jesus covers our hereditary sinfulness (a state of being as opposed to a state of doing). I do not believe the blood of Jesus must cover our sinful flesh nature or else we would stand guilty and condemned in the sight of God because of it. It is not a sin to possess sinful flesh nature. Possessing it does not cause corruption or contamination or condemnation. The only thing that requires the covering blood of Jesus is the sins we ourselves commit and repent of.

I agree sinful mind and sinful flesh are two different aspects of human nature. But, where in the Bible or the SOP does it imply the "flesh is amoral"? Ellen wrote:


She says sinful flesh tempts us from within by producing unholy lusts (desires) and affections, corrupt thoughts, and animal propensities, which, by the grace of God, we must resist or rein in unto the honor and glory of God. She doesn't make it sound like the flesh is amoral. It sounds like the flesh generates unholy thoughts and feelings actively warring against us tempting us from within to express our innocent and legitimate needs in sinful ways.


Elsewhere you commented:


It sounds like we're talking past each other. The clamorings of sinful flesh constitute temptations - not sinning. In the AH 127 passage I posted above she makes it clear the flesh cannot commit a sin, that it can only tempt us to sin. Being tempted from within in this way does not count as a sin; nor does it cause corruption or contamination or condemnation.

Bump for Rosangela and Arnold.

Mike, there's no "sinful flesh nature," there's sinful nature. EGW uses the terms "character" and "nature" synonymously. Thus, being a partaker of the divine nature can only mean being a partaker of the divine character. A transformation of nature can only mean a transformation of character:

"Christ says: Open the door of your heart; give Me entrance, and I will make you a child of God. I will transform your weak, sinful nature into the divine image, giving it beauty and perfection." {TMK 106.3}


I think it's possible sometimes to manifest selfishness without realizing it - at least not at the moment.

"At another time during their early evangelistic labors, James and John met one who, while not an acknowledged follower of Christ, was casting out devils in His name. The disciples forbade the man to work and thought they were right in doing this. But when they laid the matter before Christ, He reproved them... The disciples must not indulge a narrow, exclusive spirit... James and John had thought that in checking this man they had in view the Lord's honor; but they began to see that they were jealous for their own. They acknowledged their error and accepted the reproof." {AA 543.3}


I'm not sure about that. I think good traits are good, and bad traits are bad. I think bad traits are sinful traits. But, in the same way some drops of poison contaminate a whole jar of juice, some sinful traits make the whole character sinful.


What do you think this means?

"Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God." {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}

Yes, anything and everything sinful is justly condemned by God. But in Christ we are justly declared sinless. However, the sinful flesh aspect of human nature (a.k.a sinful flesh nature) continues to be sinful and condemned.

Regarding the rest of your post, I agree it is the character we ourselves cultivate (not anything we inherit at birth) that will determine our eternal destiny during judgment.

I'm not sure I understood your position. If our sinful nature is condemned by God and we can only be declared sinless because of Christ, how did things work in Christ's case? Was His sinful nature condemned?

Jesus bore the sins of the world in His sinful flesh nature. God justly condemns sins and sinfulness. However, in the case of Jesus, He was born in a born-again state, meaning He was born with all the implanted "new" traits and attributes. He never sinned. Therefore, He was sinless. His inherited baggage was sinful and condemned, but the character He Himself cultivated was sinless and uncondemned. It's the same thing as you saying the inherited character we are born with does not condemn us in the sight of God. The reason God "declares" us sinless is due to the fact He must pardon past sins and in its place apply the benefits of Jesus' blood and righteousness. Nevertheless, we are also, here and now, in reality "righteous even as he is righteous."

In that case, we wouldn't be condemned because we are born again?