I wrote a pretty long post in response to Rosangela's post above, but I guess I was in so much of a hurry I didn't post it. Hopefully it's still on my other computer, and I can post it tomorrow.

Dear Brother,

The two quotes you submitted from Ellen White tell us that our passions and appetites were subverted by indulging them. Would you consider that this means our appetites were not perverted when we were born? It seems to me that, since we are born with evil propensities as a result of Adam and Eve's sins, it is inevitaaable that we will indulge our passions, and thus pervert them evn further.

Robert Parker

Thank you, Rosangela. Very nice quote. I agree with you, and it.

Robert, I also agree with you. And welcome to MASDOL.

Dear Robert,

As far as being born with propensities is concerned, Christ was born with the same propensities we are. Biologically, Christ was no different than we are. How Christ was able to remain sinless as a young child, the Spirit of Prophesy tell us is a mystery not revealed to mortals.

MM has the theory that it was because Christ was born connected to God (I hope I'm expressing his idea correctly). I have heard others who have the same theory. I'm personally unconvinced by the theory, but it seems like a reasonable one. (i.e. I'm not convinced it's wrong either).

Actually I should explain further. I agree that Christ was born connected to God (given whatever that means for an infant), but I think MM thinks this is because He was born "born again" by virture of either His being divine or because He submitted His will to the Father before coming (as in Hebrews) or maybe both, I'm not sure. Anyway I hope I have the theory correct. This is one I've heard by others as well.

The view I lean towards is that Christ's connection as an infant was on the basis of His parents faith. The Spirit of Prophesy speaks of other infants being under grace by virtue of their parent's faith, and it seems reasonable to me that this should apply to Christ as well. However, given that the Spirit of Prophesy tells us that how Christ remained sinless as a child is a mystery which God has not revealed, I try to avoid speculating on this too much.

When Luke refers to the angel's referring to "that holy thing" I understand this to be referring to Christ's divinity (however there are post-lapsarians who think this was applying to Christ's humanity -- "post-lapsarian" means "post-fall" and refers to the idea that Christ took the nature of man after the fall).

Unfortunately, I did lose the long post responding to Rosangela, so I'll have to re-post.

I've appreciated this discussion. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us this is a very important subject for us to understand, and it seems to me that it's gone quite well, without a lot of invective, which unfortunately often accompanies this subject. I know I've learned things during the discussion, and I hope it's been helpful to others as well.

Old Tom: Adam had no self that had to be denied in order to do God's will, also Eve. They had to go against their biological make up in order to transgress.

Tom,

This does not make sense. Of course they had a self to be denied, and they fell exactly because they didn’t deny it.

To deny self is just to do something you wouldn’t like to do, or to abstain from doing something you would like to do, for the love of another.

Tom: But what is it that Adam would like to do rather than the will of God? There was no need for him to deny himself before sin came into the picture because his will *was* God's will; there was no conflict, hence no need for denial.

R: Christ denied self in heaven. God denied self.

"But in carrying out his enmity toward Christ till he crucified him,-- hung him on the cross of Calvary, with bruised body and broken heart,--Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe. Christ's death silenced forever the charge that with God self-denial was impossible. It was seen that God denied himself because of his love for mankind." {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 5}

"Christ denied himself. He did not count heaven a place to be desired while we were lost, and he left the heavenly courts to suffer a life of shame, reproach, insult, and mockery. For our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich. He lived a life of self-sacrifice and self-denial, and passed over the ground that we must travel, in order to leave us an example that we might follow in his steps." {ST, June 1, 1891 par. 3}

"In carrying out his enmity to Christ until He hung upon the cross of Calvary, with wounded, bruised body and broken heart, Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe.It was then seen that God had in His Son denied Himself, giving Himself for the sins of the world, because He loved mankind. The Creator was revealed in the Son of the infinite God. Here the question, 'Can there be self-denial with God?' was forever answered. Christ was God, and condescending to be made flesh, He assumed humanity and became obedient unto death, that He might undergo infinite sacrifice." {1SM 342.1}

"Let us learn what it means to deny self as Christ denied self. He laid aside all that He had with the Father, and clothing His divinity with humanity came to earth that He might teach men and women how they might overcome. We are living in a time of test. Shall we not decide to stand on the side of Christ in this matter?" {2SAT 319.2}

Old Tom:I would agree that the nature of the temptations which Christ faced in the wilderness (and throughout His life) were the same as ours, but not the temptations of Adam and Eve.

I will quote it again:

"With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us." {DA 116.4}

Tom: I wish I hadn't lost the other post. I won't be able to go into as much detail as I did there, but briefly there is a point of agreement in that point of temptation, which is on the point of appetite. But the nature of the temptations was as different as night and day.

When Adam was tempted he had not "corrupted principles" or "tendencies to evil" where Christ "came in the likeness of sinful flesh." Christ had to deal with sin, both in its tendency and in its cultivation, in overcoming temptation. It's true, of course, that Christ never committed sin, so He never cultivated it Himself, but He bore our sin, and in bearing that He had both sin in its tendency (by heredity) and its cultivation (by imputation). The Spirit of Prophesy brings out in great detail how sin contributed to Christ's temptations, and often brings out how different Christ's temptations were to Adam's. One place that deals with these concepts in great detail is "2Red - Redemption; or the Temptation of Christ in The Wilderness (1877)"

Old Tom:I see their temptations as much different, because they had neither inherited or cultivated tendencies towards evil. That fundamentally changes the nature of temptation.

The nature of temptation is the same - to please self. The intensity of temptation can vary. Our temptations are much stronger than those of Adam and Eve, and Christ’s temptations were much stronger than ours.
The essence of temptaion is the same. In this sense, there is no difference between Adam and Eve’s temptations, Christ’s, and ours. Satan tempts all on the basis of "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life". The person yields to temptation “when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin” (James 1:14, AV). The word lust here is epithumea, which the dictionary defines as “desire, longing; lust, passion; covetousness”. It’s the same word used in Romans 7:7 and there translated as covetousness. Covetousness is the root of sin. In order to sin, you must first covet. Eve clearly coveted the fruit before eating it. Satan also coveted the position of God. So, although they were unfallen beings, they were able to covet (i.e., to desire something against the will of God). The desire to possess something is not evil in itself. It becomes evil if you seek to satisfy it independently of God. Thus, there is no difference between the temptation of fallen and unfallen beings. It is generally more automatic for us to yield to temptation mainly because of our cultivated tendencies to evil (as in the case of the illustration you gave); after you sin the first time, sin becomes a habit. Jesus had no cultivated tendencies to evil because He never sinned.

Tom: I agree with your ideas regarding James 1:14 insofar as the meaning of the word "lust" or "desire" is concerned. However, the nature, or essence, of our temptations and Adam's is very different. As Sister White puts it:

quote:

---

He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}

---

This spells out the difference, and this difference is very important.

Tom, yes, you presented the view I favor correctly, as I understand it. Jesus chose to be born, as it were, born-again. He was different from John the baptist at birth in more ways than we can comprehend. John was not born born-again. True, we cannot explain why Jesus did not sin before He reached the age of accountability, but this lack of knowledge does not prevent us from believing that we begin at rebirth where He began at birth. That is, we begin with a clean slate. The mind of the new man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness", is sinless and without fault or blame - just like Jesus.

Rosangela, good point. The dynamics of temptation are the same whether the person being tempted is sinless or sinful. However, would you agree that possessing sinful nature changes how the temptation impacts us systemically? Adam and Eve's nature was sinless, therefore, they did not have to wrestle against compounded odds, against combined forces, that is, against the temptation itself plus the sinful urge to embrace it. Adam and Eve, in their innocence, did not possess this sinful urge, the sinful clamoring of fallen flesh, like Jesus did, and like we do.

Don't misunderstand me, please. I'm not saying Jesus Himself craved sinning, but rather His sinful flesh nature craved to meet its legitimate needs (i.e., appetites and passions) in a sinful way. However, from the cradle to the cross, Jesus successfully resisted these unholy urges and clamorings. And so may we, if we choose to be reborn, and if we remain connected to Christ in the same way He was connected to the Father. But Adam and Eve did not have to resist the sinful mind and voice of a fallen nature in addition to the temptation itself.

Whether or not having a sinless nature gave them an advantage over us in resisting temptation is a good question and concept to explore. My initial reaction is to say, No. Whether a temptation originates from within or from without shouldn't change the basic dynamics of being tempted. The dynamics of resisting temptation are the same, therefore, I'm not sure how having a sinless nature or a sinful one would make any difference, so far as resisting the temptation. As born again believers it is our privilege to partake of the divine nature, which, it would seem, should make the playing field equal.

In other words, so long as we are partaking of the divine nature we should be just as capable as Adam and Eve were in resisting temptation, and whether those temptations originate within or without shouldn't matter, so far as resisting them is concerned. The fact we must resist temptation on two fronts, and Adam and Eve didn't, shouldn't change the dynamics of resisting temptation. However, it does complicate things.

OHC 298
When the human will cooperates with the will of God, it becomes omnipotent, and the worker can make opportunities. {OHC 298.4}

FW 26, 27
The law of the human and the divine action makes the receiver a laborer together with God. It brings man where he can, united with divinity, work the works of God. {FW 26.3}

HP 279
You can go to God in prayer; you can ask, and receive; you can believe, hanging your helpless soul on Christ. It means that humanity can work the will and ways of God. Humanity and divinity are combined for this very purpose. {HP 279.2}

TE 107
The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity, and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome. Christ came to make us "partakers of the divine nature," and His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin. {Te 107.1}