She didn't say that at all. She said we had to live the life of the Saviour and that we had to overcome our selfish desires. You are pressuposing that overcoming our selfish desires means living the life of the Saviour. But this is just that - a pressuposition. And an unfounded one.

Satan stood ready to assail Him at every step, hurling at Him his fiercest temptations; yet He "did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). "He . . .suffered being tempted," suffered in proportion to the perfection of His holiness. But the prince of darkness found nothing in Him; not a single thought or feeling responded to temptation. {AG 165.4}

How can you harmonize the view that Christ had selfish desires with the statement that "not a single thought or feeling [of His] responded to temptation"?


No, this is one kind of temptation - the temptation based on the corruption of the sinner's heart.


Drawing you to the evil thing you want. Not subtle at all. The obvious temptation. The one it's easy to perceive. There is a much more subtle one - the crafty one, the cunning one, that which someone falls into without realizing it. That which has a mastermind behind it. Most people are not even aware that this kind of temptation exists.

Yes, there are NO RISKS with God....
...As whatever the terminus is - is 100% known.
...Therefore our perception does not increase or decrease the ultimate reality already known by God.

If we were bible-only christians the answer would be clear...
...God said explicitly in His Word that Christ would not fail.
...Therefore any serious consideration of a hypothetical suggesting God could fail.
...Is absolutely heretical - because God knew He wouldn't fail.



Yes, they absolutely knew salvation would be given through Christ....
...And as the possibility was 100% that leaves 0.0% risk salvation would fail.



Both and much much more than that....
...Ellen White repudiated the Trinity as did our Pioneers.
...So you have 1) "risk" & 2) conditional deity.
...Neither of which can be applied to God.
...Under a Trinitarian definition.

Sock Puppet
As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. {16MR 181.4}

Another perfect example of what I've been saying since posting on this forum...
...That Christ was God in the way the Pioneers said he was God.
...And that our christ was a "creature christ" which was absolutely subject to failure, eternal loss, etc.

Sock Puppet
We must practice the example of Christ, bearing in mind His Sonship and His humanity. It was not God that was tempted in the wilderness, nor a God that was to endure the contradiction of sinners against Himself. It was the Majesty of heaven who became a man-- humbled Himself to our human nature. {3SM 140.4}

Yes, Amen - again proving exactly what I've been saying....
...A creature christ.

It was NOT God that was tempted in the wilderness NOR was it God...
...That endured the contradiction of sinners against Himself.
...It was a creature christ.

Isa 35:4
Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

This is exactly the reason it's so important to know the difference between Adventist Doctrine...
....And papal doctrine as taught in the apostate churches.

In the papal Doctrine the one substance which is God...
...Is co-equally owned by the three members of the Trinity.
...Therefore whatever the substance is that is God.
...Is equally Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

In this apostate doctrine God the Son Incarnated into human flesh.....
...And "ADDED" or "TOOK ON" an additional human nature.
...That was not tainted with Original Sin.
...In other words the same flesh that any man at that time would have been born with.
...Without the stain of original sin.

These two natures were UNITED perfectly in what they call the Hypostatic Union...
...They were NOT blended or mixed into a creature christ.
...Sister White contrasts this Papal blasphemy by saying the natures were BLENDED or MIXED UP.

THIS IS HUGE!



I'm afraid NOT.

Sock Puppet, ST April 14, 1898
Christ's humanity could NOT be separated from His divinity

The Divine nature had been blended with the human nature...
...Into the one person Jesus therefore IF Jesus the man died in sin.
...The pre-Incarnate Son of God would have been consumed by maggots.
...And forever ceased to exist.

That's REAL RISK....
...Unlike what the so called bible says.

Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin. IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lostIt was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth.


I will be back later to address the rest of your post Rosangela....
...I'm sure you will like it.

Ceph,

I see now that your problem is with the Trinity doctrine. There are a lot of threads ihere which have alread discussed this subject. I'll bump some of them so that you can examine them if you wish.

No need too - I've already looked at them and participated...
...The O.P. of this thread is "overcoming sin".
...Ironically exactly what Sock Puppet said Christ did.
...Literally.

Is it "tomorrow" yet? Just kidding. When you have the time.

Yes, "tomorrow" has finally arrived.


Can the Holy Spirit empower a baby to be sinless? Was John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, sinless?
Does "We need not retain one sinful propensity" mean that our sinful propensities cease to exist or that they are subdued?

The propensities which reign in the natural heart must be subdued by the grace of Christ, before fallen man can be elevated to harmonize with Heaven, and enjoy the society of the pure and holy angels. {LP 125.2}

However, Ellen White says that Christ didn't possess the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man (that is, as all of us).


A couple of questions: 1) Is the old nature erradicated from us when we are born again? 2) Is the old nature selfish?


Yes, because their character ceased to be perfect. Do you think this happened before their sin or after their sin? Think about Lucifer.


Before the law of God, none. It condemns both.


The provision for these was made through Christ's sacrifice.

There has been a lot of speculation here. Sure, the risk was real. BUT the risk wasn't restricted to Christ. If you want to quote Ellen White, then quote her in full. Christ and the Father are OF ONE SUBSTANCE (The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54). And Ellen White said not just that Christ ran a risk, but that HEAVEN WAS IMPERILED (COL 196.4). What does she mean by that? Nobody knows exactly what would have happened. And this argument about "risk", of course, doesn't prove at all that Christ is an inferiof "god". If Christ had stayed in heaven and the Father had come to earth, the Father also would have run a risk.

Concupiscence
1) desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust


Propensity
1. a natural tendency or disposition


The above is to set the stage more properly for what we are talking about...
...If you would be so kind to help me see how you see the two words - and if they are different.
...And how they would apply to Christ.



According to the bible there was zero risk Christ wouldn't secure Salvation for the world...
...According to the bible Salvation was only a matter of when.
...It was NEVER a matter of 'IF'.

It is illogical & foolish to speculate as to the outcome of a pre-ordained / determined outcome...
...Especially one that God dedicated literally the whole of the Old Testament on.
...You should realize that the speculation is absolutely all 'OURS'.



Of course they are - God exuded Christ so God is literally the Father of Christ...
...This is how Sister White could say that in Christ was life eternal, unborrowed, etc.
...It was the life of the Father ISSUED to Christ BY His Father.
....This was detailed massively by the Pioneers.

The whole point here is "overcoming sin" and if Christ FELT the pull of temptation....
....Then He wanted to do those things.
....He was; "longing and yearning for" WHAT was his natural tendency.
....He OVERCAME.

I don't know about all babies or even John the Baptist. But it is clear baby Jesus did not sin. And, "We need not retain one sinful propensity" envisions the elimination of some and the subjection of others. It is also clear Jesus did not indulge the same sinful propensities sinners indulge. Like born-again believers, Jesus subdued, subjected, reined-in the unholy clamorings of His sinful flesh nature.


1. No. Sinful flesh nature remains, though over time it withers and wanes for want of action and attention. Jesus implants a "new nature". They also partake of the divine nature.
2. No. Sinful flesh nature is not a sentient being capable of sinning and incurring guilt. It can only tempt us from within to indulge our innocent and legitimate needs in sinful ways.

Do these answers help you address my observation above? If so, how?


Defective traits of character are the result of repetitiously thinking, speaking, and behaving in ways we know and believe are contrary to the will of God. So, sinning and the creation of sinful traits of character occur simultaneously. Lucifer was not guilty of sinning until after he was convinced it would be wrong to continue pursuing his course of action. Thus, having sinless traits of character does not mean it is impossible to sin. Neither does having sinful traits of character mean it is impossible to not sin.


Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say Jesus makes atonement for the sins we were capable of committing but were empowered not to commit?

Many have to battle against strong hereditary tendencies to evil. Unnatural cravings, sensual impulses, were their inheritance from birth. These must be carefully guarded against. Within and without, good and evil are striving for the mastery. {MH 173.3}

This passage, for instance, implies that unnatural cravings are produced by sinful propensities (tendencies to evil). If Christ did not have sinful propensities, He also did not have unnatural cravings.


There is a tension both in the Bible and in EGW about Christ’s final victory and His temptations (which, if real, meant He could fail). The Bible implies that these temptations were real, and EGW applies to them the term “risk.”


So you believe EGW contradicts herself. Underived life means just that – not derived from anyone. If Christ's life was derived from His Father, it couldn’t be described as being underived.


Those who “long and yearn” for sin love sin. However, Christ HATED sin and RECOILED from evil.

Amid impurity, Christ maintained His purity. Satan could not stain or corrupt it. His character revealed a perfect hatred for sin. It was His holiness that stirred against Him all the passion of a profligate world; for by His perfect life He threw upon the world a perpetual reproach, and made manifest the contrast between transgression and the pure, spotless righteousness of One that knew no sin. {ST, May 10, 1899 par. 9}

He is our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. {Pr 173.4}