Arnold, thank you for explaining your position. Yes, we are born selfish and sinning. We are born dead in trespasses and sins. We are inherently lawless and ungodly. Yes, we are born in desperate need of salvation and a Saviour, not because of the sinful flesh we inherit, but because of the sins we commit.

Our fallen flesh generates and communicates to our conscious mind unholy thoughts and feelings. Here is how it is explained in the SOP:


Yes, we are born with thoughts and feelings. Yes, we inherit sinful traits and tendencies. But we are not born with a character. True, thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character, but it is also true that character is the result of repetitious choices and behavior.

By definition, sin is the transgression of the law. Yes, it is the result of our lawless state and condition, but "sin" is not a person or place. It is a thing, a thought or word or deed that violates the law of God. The idea that "sin" is a state of being, as well as a state of doing, blurs the plain definition of sin. There is no support in the Bible or the SOP that "sin" is what we are. Yes, we are sinners because "all have sinned" but we are not sin.

Here is how sin is defined and described in the SOP:

Check this:

The SOP is clear that human nature is condemned; no actions mentioned.



Look at the end of that quote: "put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ."

When we speak of crucifying the flesh, EGW is clear that it is not referring to the body. Rather, then field of battle is in the thoughts.

I don't see in there anything that should be taken as teaching that there's a "fallen flesh" entity that generates bad thoughts and feeling to feed to us.



You say:

1. Babies have thoughts and feelings.
2. Babies have no character.
3. Thoughts and feelings combined make up moral character.

I don't see how all can be true at the same time.



John said, sin is anomia. Is anomia a thought, word, or deed?

Let's look at the opposite of sin: love. Can we define love as a thought or word or deed that fulfills the law of God? I don't think so. If you check out my sermon ( Roots and Fruits (sermon by Arnold Sy Go)) you'll see how I see the law.



Check these from your quotes:

Sin, just like the law, encompasses more than what we do.

What do you think of my analysis of Christ's command to be more righteous than the Pharisees? (It's in the sermon.)

Arnold, I listened to your sermon. Thank you. It was well done. Wish I could have been there. I agreed with nearly everything you said. How refreshing.

Jesus' comment about exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees is powerful. However, I do not think it defines righteousness. Paul's comment about his blameless obedience is also powerful. But neither does it define righteousness. The law requires holy hearts and behavior, not just outward obedience.

So in reality, regardless of how spotless they seemed on the outside, neither the Pharisees nor Paul were righteousness according to the law. They were neither righteous outside nor inside. You can't have one without the other.

Regarding sinful flesh: I guess we simply disagree. Yes, God condemns it, but not us. In other words, He does not condemn us because our flesh nature is sinful. By the way, as I see it, flesh and body are two different aspects of human nature. Do you agree?

Regarding character: Again, character is the result of repeatedly acting out the thoughts and feelings that come into mind. One thought or one feeling indulged does not constitute character.

I do not believe we become law or love when God implants law and love in our hearts and minds. We can choose to be law abiding and loving, but we do not thereby become law or love. Neither do we become sin by being born or by committing sins.

Is character inherited? I do not think so. True, we inherit traits and tendencies, but I do not believe we inherit character. I believe character is the result of repeatedly acting out the thoughts and feeling that come into mind. "God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character." (COL 331)

PS - This thread is full of Bible and SOP quotes to support what I believe. There is no need to repost them here.

That's exactly what I was trying to get across. I'm glad at least one person caught it.



I don't agree.

The body is an aspect of human nature, along with the mind and spirit - physical, intellectual, moral.

I see "fleshly" as descibing the corrupt condition of each of the three aspects of human nature. So, fleshly lusts that war against the soul are the corrupt inclinations of human nature - body, mind, spirit - that lead to destruction. But the flesh is not a separate or distinct entity from the body.

But as we all know, words have different meanings in different contexts. So, flesh can also mean the body. It can also mean animal life. Sarx takes on these different meanings.



Remember, Adam and Eve were condemned for indulging in sin once.



But inheritance and cultivation are not mutually exclusive. You speak as if the truth that character is developed nullifies the truth that character is inherited. It is not so.

Take the example of physical stature. A baby inherits a certain amount of it, then cultivates/develops the rest. The same holds true for character.

Note this quote I came across in my studies:

Notice that they were disqualified by something they inherited, not developed. But that does not nullify the fact that people also disqualify themselves by poor development of God-given gifts.

Mike,

I would like to make two comments. First, in the same way that "righteousness" describes a state of being, so does "sin."

"The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness." {Con 31.3}

"If properly instructed, very young children may have correct views of their state as sinners and of the way of salvation through Christ." {1T 400.1}

Sin is not just an act, but a state of being.

Second, Ellen White describes selfishness as "the want [lack] of Christlike humility" (1MCP 271.3) and as "an attribute of Satan" (1MR 211.1). It's completely inconsistent, to me, to believe that Christ was born lacking humility, or was born with an attribute of Satan, but still could be the express image of God, and still could be considered a Lamb without spot.

That's a very good point.

Jesus was the express image of God. Was He born this way, or did He have to develop to become the express image of God?