Rosangela, you didn't comment on the AH quote posted above. Sister White says our sinful flesh can tempt but that it cannot sin. In light of our discussion on the contextual differences between the words "nature" (inherited traits) and "character" (cultivated traits) what do you make of the insight in the AH quote?

As I see it, sinful flesh nature is what we inherit at birth and is replaced with a sinless one when Jesus returns. Character, on the other hand, is the byproduct, as it were, of sinful flesh nature. Sinful character is sinful flesh "manifested". (Gal 5:19) It is what we ourselves cultivate before we are born again and, if we disconnect from Jesus, what we cultivate while disconnected from Jesus.

Since character is the only thing we take with us to heaven then it stands to reason that our sinful flesh nature will be replaced when Jesus returns. Here are some quotes that imply this insight:

1 Corinthians
15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.
15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

AA 560, 561
Sanctification is not the work of a moment, an hour, a day, but of a lifetime. It is not gained by a happy flight of feeling, but is the result of constantly dying to sin, and constantly living for Christ. Wrongs cannot be righted nor reformations wrought in the character by feeble, intermittent efforts. It is only by long, persevering effort, sore discipline, and stern conflict, that we shall overcome. We know not one day how strong will be our conflict the next. So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained. Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience. {AA 560.3}

The idea that it takes a lifetime to cease sinning, or to swap sinful traits of character for righteous ones, assumes God cannot, or chooses not to, set us free now. But the fact is we are set free the moment we are born again. It does not take a lifetime of sinning less and less to be free from sinning. We do not gradually overcome sinning by sinning less and less often.

Instead, the thing that takes a lifetime is to mature in the rightetous character traits God implanted in us the moment we were born again. In fact, not even eternal life is long enough to become as mature as Jesus is. Growth in grace and character development is a lifelong process whereby we imitate the example of Jesus by becoming more and more mature in the fruits of the Spirit - not less and less sinful like Satan.

Mike, I agree with much of what you say, but you don't comment on unconscious sins/sins of ignorance. Before Christ come can, these sins must be revealed and overcome.

Our biggest sins are ones caused by misunderstanding God's character. The final message to be given to the world will be one of God's true character.

Tom, it appears, based on other threads, that we do not see eye to eye on what constitutes a sin of ignorance. I believe it is only intellectual things like the sabbath, dress and diet reform, and biblical doctrines like the state of the dead and the 2300 day prophecy.

In other words, sins of ignorance involve matters of the mind, things that require book learning, as opposed to things we know naturally from birth, moral matters of the soul like lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. I see a huge distinction between mental and moral issues, especially as it relates to salvation.

But here we're discussing what happens to our sinful flesh nature after we're born again. On this point it would appear that we are in agreement. Rosangela, on the other hand, isn't. She seems convinced (though I'm not certain of what she is saying) that our sinful flesh nature is gradually converted in this lifetime, that it is transformed into a sinless nature, that it won't be replaced when Jesus returns. Or, did I get it wrong? What does she believe?

I'm hesitant to speak for Rosangela, so I'll let her respond for herself.

I agree with your assessment that you and I appear to be in agreement regarding the sinful nature being our flesh, and that Christ took that nature, and overcame in spite of having taken it, demonstrating that complete victory is possible for us.

We appear to be in some disagreement as to the extent of Christ's temptations, based on another thread. I believe Christ was tempted in all points as we are, because not only did take our sinful nature, but He also took our sin. It is that combination which allowed Him, I believe, to be tempted not only as one who is born again, but also as one who is not.

Regarding things we know by birth, what makes you think we know things like lying etc. by birth? We are taught these things and learn them the same way we learn what you call the book learning things. There's no difference. When we learn about the Sabbath, it becomes a moral issue, passing from being a sin of ignorance. Similarly one may learn that living with someone is not the same thing as being married, and what was a sin of ignorance becomes a moral issue. Similarly for lying, idols, or any other sin.

So it appears to me you are making an artificial distinction where none exists.

Will this help any?

S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 6---- Ephesians-----PG- 1118
(John 14:15). Reaching the Condition of Sinlessness. –Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all His precepts (MS 122, 1901).

Manuscript Releases Volume Eight--- The Law------PG- 99
Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all His precepts, including the one relating to the observance of the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, the day that He blessed and sanctified, "because that in it He had rested from all His work" (Gen. 2:3).


The diference between Jesus and us is....We were both born with inherited tendencies to evil and chose to cultivate these tendencies.....
with complete dependance on His Father, Jesus did not. He chose not to sin.

With complete dependance/strength on Our Heavenly Father, we need not sin either.

All sin comes in three catagories:

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

The "tempted in all points" means the above, and covers all bases for me, you and Jesus. He could not be our Saviour unless He experienced every temptation we have and gained the victory.

Conversion happens in the mind ---

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Jesus overcame in sinful flesh [chose not to sin]to show us we may also overcome [choose not to sin] in our sinful flesh.


My 2 cents
God Bless

Mike,
I’m still studying this subject and haven’t yet arrived at any conclusion, so I’m just saying what seems to make more sense.

The text you quoted points out that 1) it is not the body that sins (how could it?), but the mind. So, 2) the words “flesh” and “fleshly lusts”, in the context Peter and Paul use them, do not mean the body itself but the lower nature (the bodily propensities and passions which lead to errors in thought and action when injuriously gratified).

"Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul," is the language of the apostle Peter. Many regard this text as a warning against licentiousness only; but it has a broader meaning. It forbids every injurious gratification of appetite or passion. ... Wrong habits of eating and drinking lead to errors in thought and action. Indulgence of appetite strengthens the animal propensities, giving them the ascendency over the mental and spiritual powers.” {HR, November 1, 1882 par. 1}

When any lust takes possession of the mind in any way or to any degree, and there is a yielding to fleshly desires, we lose the image of Christ in spirit and character. {RH, January 21, 1890 par. 5}

Men's natural appetites have been perverted by indulgence. Through unholy gratification they have become "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." Unless the Christian watches unto prayer, ... his inclinations, abused and misguided, will be the means of his backsliding from God.--Manuscript 47, 1896. {Te 19.1}

All habits of indulgence that weaken the physical powers, that becloud the mind, or that benumb the spiritual perceptions, are "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." 1 Peter 2:11. {COL 53.1}

It seems to me that the word “flesh” comprises just the bodily appetites and passions, therefore it seems not to include all kinds of sins. What do you and Tom think about this? The body will be changed at Christ’s coming, but will this in any way affect the process of sinning? If all sins were in some way related to the body, how is it that angels sinned?

As to our nature being renewed or transformed in this life, it’s not I who say this, but Ellen White (some quotes provided in my last post before this one). What do you think she means by that?

Here's what I think:

Our nature being transformed refers to our minds. I don't see any difference between her saying our natures our transformed and Scripture saying our minds are renewed.

Sin resides in the mind. The mind governs the will. The flesh is a means by which one can be tempted. It also contains genetic predispositions to sin.

Christ took our flesh, so had the same genetic predispositions to sin that we have. He was also tempted in the same means by which we are tempted. However, Christ never yielded to temptation.

Our characters are not changed at Christ's coming, but our flesh is. If humanity can perfectly obey God with fallen flesh, it can certainly do so in sinless flesh, so the question of our safeness to saved is answered.

Since "nature" can mean either character or flesh, depending on the context, one could say that at Christ's coming our character is not changed, but our sinful nature is. Or one could say, our nature (i.e. character) is not changed, but our flesh is. Or, to be really confusing, one could say our nature is not changed, but our nature is. Yikes! What a mess.

This is why when one considers the word "nature" one must be very careful to ascertain the context. Does it mean flesh, or character? I don't think this is a difficult question inconsidering Ellen White's writings; she's usually very clear as to her meaning. Also her views, and her verbage, weren't any different than her contemporaries. This wasn't a controversial point within Seventh-day Adventism during her lifetime.

What happens to the sinful nature when we are born again is basically what happens to the Alocholic when they attend AA, or the smoker who is giving up smoking.

Amen. Still tempted, but victorious (so long as they follow the right steps).