Rosangela: It appears to me that our differences on this subject are symantical.

The quote you provided about Christ's childhood was discussing Christ's divinity. "God in human flesh" "Divinity flashing through humanity." Christ's whole missions was to manifest the character of the Father, and this He did, even as a child. A key point which Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, et. al. made was that Christ was God manifest in sinful flesh, such as we have, not the sinless flesh of Adam before the fall. Again, I cannot tell that we are differing in any meaningful way, based on what you wrote. You seem to agree with the main points I was making (laying aside my choice of words), and I agree with the main points you were making. "Nature," in particular, is a particularly elusive word, having many different meaning and shades of meaning.

One comment regarding how sin changes things rather than simply strengthening a temptation is that with a sinful nature temptations include things which are unnatural as well as natural. Hopefully this thought is clear. I'm making this point because both you and MM have used an expression similar to "natural passions" or "natural appetites," but sinful flesh is tempted by unnatural passions and appetities as well, and these are temptations which must also be overcome.

I've appreciated this thread as it has helped me recognize even more fully the importance of language in trying to communicate in subjects such as the human nature of Christ or the Trinity. It's indeed a challenge to comminicate on these subjects in ways which are simple, clear and accurate.

MM: If your born again theory were true, then wouldn't that explain how Christ remained sinless as a child? It seems to me there wouldn't be a mystery.

Rosangela, great quotes. Once again, well done. Adam definitely had inherent, innate, inborn advantages that unconverted sinners do not, but when we experience the miracle of rebirth and begin partaking of the divine nature, as Christ did, then we are no longer incapable of resisting temptation. I also thought it was interesting that Sister White said Jesus had to prove Himself qualified to serve as our Saviour by resisting temptation.

Tom, it isn't as surprising to me that Jesus as a child was able to resist temptations equal to His age and experience. The part I find mysterious and unexplainable is how He, as an infant, was able to behave sinlessly, to avoid the selfish behaviour common to all infants. According to the view of rebirth that I have embraced we begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth, that is, with a clean slate. And, so long as we are abiding in Christ, in the same way He abode in the Father, we will work the works of God.

Jesus was the only person ever born born-again. But, nevertheless, He came into this world with the same sinful nature that causes normal human infants to sin instinctively and automatically, and yet Jesus did not sin by default, like we do, during this age of non-accountability. How can an infant, even the baby Jesus, recognize and resist sin, self, and Satan? Infants aren’t old enough to understand sin and salvation, therefore, they cannot not sin. Except for Jesus. He didn’t sin. That’s what I think is the mysterious part about the life of Jesus.

About fetal sins. I do not have a handy quote, only the ones I posted elsewhere, where Sister White warned mothers and fathers to be careful during prenatal development because the characters of unborn children are affected for weal or woe. This insight implies fetuses begin developing certain traits of character before they are born.

I cannot remember how I reacted to the various influences and stimuli that affected me while I was in my mother’s womb, but given the fact we are conceived in sin, that we inherit a very active and powerful sinful nature, which causes us to sin automatically (until we are old enough to choose to be born again), I cannot imagine that I responded in a sinless way.

Since I don’t like cramped places, I seriously suspect that, at least from time to time, I became somewhat impatient as I struggled to get comfortable in the limited space my mother could spare me in her stomach.

John, I agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily with your premise. Maybe "self" isn't the best word to use, as it seems to be easily misunderstood (sort of like "nature" I guess). My point was pretty much what you were pointing out, which is that Adam and Eve had to fight against that which was natural for them to do (obey God) in order to sin, whereas we must do the reverse, fight against that which is natural for us to do (disobey God) in order not to sin.

Tom, do you believe infants are sinless? that they cannot sin until they understand the difference between right and wrong? that, in the meantime, they naturally obey God? that they naturally respond to the stimuli and influences affecting them in a sinless way?

And, what about all those SOP quotes where she warns parents to be careful during the prenatal months because unborn children are learning good and bad habits in the womb? How do you interpret her insights?

I'll start with the last question first. I believe that our characters determine our destiny. This is because God will take all to heaven who would be happy there. That prenatal influences impact a person's character seems obvious to me, and I would believe that without any comments from the Spirit of Prophesy.

I believe we inherit natures which, apart from the grace of God, must result in rebellion against God. However, the grace of God is given to all, and it is powerful enough to overcome sin to all who are open to receive it.

We are by nature enemies of God, alientated against Him in our mind. We need the healing which Jesus Christ alone can provide. However, I'm not aware that the time in which this healing could start is limited. It's clear to me that babies are dependent upon the influence of their parents.

I hope this answers your questions. If not, please follow up.