Rosangela, I think it would be good to clear up what we understand certain phrases to mean. I understand "sinful nature" to be identical in meaning to "sinful flesh" but very different from "carnal mind." The flesh cannot act of itself, but the mind can and does. The flesh contains tendencies which are passed genetically, but the mind acts on these tendencies. So I would never say that Christ was carnally mind, nor that Christ had a carnal mind. His flesh was like ours, but not His mind.

Every post-lapsarian would deny that Christ had a carnal mind. If that's what you think it means to say that He took a sinful nature, I can see why you would react against such a position.

Do you see "carnal mind," "sinful flesh," and "sinful nature" as all meaning the same thing? To mention one more term, I see the "old man" as the same thing as the "carnal mind." So I would say Christ assumed our sinful nature, or our sinful flesh, but would not say that He was carnally minded, nor had an old man.

MM, I assume you agree with me on these distinctions?

No, they weren't wrong. Their mistake, in my opinion, was in believing "tendencies to sin" are in the body, not in the mind.


I'm sure none of the people you mentioned above believed that Christ had a sinful mind. Neither do I. However, I believe we are born with a sinful mind, or a carnal mind, a mind at enmity with God and His law.


Christ's mind wasn't affected in this process, for His divinity resided in His mind. Therefore, if sinful tendencies are transmitted through the mind, making our mind carnal, this couldn't have happened with Christ. So yes, Christ did not receive in His mind the same things by heredity that we do. He took our "flesh," not our mind.

I've been saying that the mind is developed. So I agree. When the baby starts making choices and decisions, it starts developing its mind.



Do you know of any evidence of this? My understanding of genetics is that this idea is not accepted by science. Do you disagree?



I assume you mean a fallen nature. When Adam sinned, all sorts of things happened. Carnivores were born, for example. Death entered the planet. Everything changed, not just the nature of men, but of the animal kingdom, and vegetable kingdom, as well. As to how this happened, I can't say.



I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Don't you agree that the flesh cannot be perfected? (it doesn't change until translation). However, character can be perfected. You agree with this too, don't you?

Postlapsarians understood Christ to have taken our sinful nature, yet be without blemish (i.e. perfect). So His flesh was seen as being like ours, yet His character perfect. So what I said is true, isn't it, that perfection was seen in the manner I stated?

Thanks for addressing these questions.



Not just this, but you think the mind is passed genetically, right? So that would be another point of disagreement, wouldn't it?



Do you see this as being the same thing as being born with a sinful nature?



I don't know what you're saying here.



I assume by "transmitted" you mean genetically. Sin passes from mind to mind, not genetically, but by way of influence. I agree that Christ did not have a carnal mind. If having genetically transmitted "tendencies to sin" meant having a "carnal mind," I would agree that this could not have happened to Christ, since Christ was not carnally minded.



We don't receive things in our mind genetically. The mind is not physical. The brain is the physical part. The mind is a concept. It involves our reasoning, our decisions, our choices, our paradigms, etc. It is developed as we grow and think and reason and make choices as to what we think is important, how we wish to live our lives, etc.

Rosangela, here's how I understand your position:

1.Tendencies to sin are in the mind, not in the flesh.
2.Tendencies can be passed genetically, but when they are, it's by way of the mind, not the flesh.
3.The flesh refers to things like getting tired, hungry and thirsty.
4.Christ took the same flesh we have, meaning that He also got tired, hungry and thirsty like we do.
5.Saying that Christ was tempted in all points like we are means He was tempted on the points like appetite, presumption. It doesn't mean that He was tempted like we are (i.e., from within, apart from Satan) but tempted in the same areas we are.
6.If it weren't for Satan, Christ would not have been tempted at all.
7.When Christ was tempted, there was nothing within which responded to the temptation. The temptations were to do things He was completely disinclined to do by nature. The temptations were of the nature of trying to get Him to take some sort of short cut in His mission, or to trick Him into sinning.
8.Ellen White agrees with your viewpoint on all the above, but her contemporaries did not (Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, all others).
9.In the Baker letter, Ellen White corrected Baker regarding the position of Jones, Waggoner, etc., but she, for reasons of her own, did not do so for Jones, Waggoner etc.
10.When she used the phrase "sinful nature," and other expressions post-lapsarians use (such as Jacob's ladder) Ellen White did not mean to say that Christ had tendencies or inclinations to sin, although her contemporaries understood this to be the case. She knew she was being misunderstood in this regard, but for reasons of her own, did not correct her contemporaries (except for Baker) on this point.

Rosangela, please repeat your thoughts regarding what it means to partake of the divine nature. I remember I thought it was very interesting, what you said, but I can't remember quite what it was.

Thanks!

Rosangela, please explain the difference born again believers and Jesus as it relates to:

1. The faculties of the mind

2. The faculties of the body.

3. Character.

4. The appetites and passions.

5. The clamorings of the flesh.

Tom,

My comments are in red.

1.Tendencies to sin are in the mind, not in the flesh.
2. [Sinful] tendencies can be passed genetically, but when they are, it's by way of the mind, not the flesh.
3.The flesh refers to things like getting tired, hungry and thirsty. [It also has to do with physical/emotional appetites and passions.]
4.Christ took the same flesh we have, meaning that He also got tired, hungry and thirsty like we do. [Meaning also that He had physical/emotional appetites and passions.]
5.Saying that Christ was tempted in all points like we are means He was tempted on the points like appetite, presumption. It doesn't mean that He was tempted like we are (i.e., from within, apart from Satan) but tempted in the same areas we are. [He wasn’t tempted by indwelling sin – but this doesn’t seem to be the only way of being tempted from within.]
6.If it weren't for Satan, Christ would not have been tempted at all. [I wouldn’t say that. The devil is just one of the sources of temptation; the other two are the world and the flesh.]
7.When Christ was tempted, there was nothing within which responded to the temptation. The temptations were to do things He was completely disinclined to do by nature. [No, obviously the temptations had to do with things He was inclined to do by nature – for instance, to use His power, to satisfy His ambition, to satisfy His physical needs.] The temptations were [also] of the nature of trying to get Him to take some sort of short cut in His mission, or to trick Him into sinning.
8.Ellen White agrees with your viewpoint on all the above, but her contemporaries did not (Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, all others).
9.In the Baker letter, Ellen White corrected Baker regarding the position of Jones, Waggoner, etc., but she, for reasons of her own, did not do so for Jones, Waggoner etc.
10.When she used the phrase "sinful nature," and other expressions post-lapsarians use (such as Jacob's ladder) Ellen White did not mean to say that Christ had tendencies or inclinations to sin, although her contemporaries understood this to be the case. She knew she was being misunderstood in this regard, but for reasons of her own, did not correct her contemporaries (except for Baker) on this point. [She didn’t correct them directly, but did touch this subject when she wrote that Christ was born without a taint of sin, etc.]

I said that the divine nature is God’s nature of love with which man was created and which he lost at the fall. Being a partaker of the divine nature simply means being in harmony with the divine character – being in God’s image.

Mike,
My comments are in red about the difference between born-again believers and Jesus.

1. The faculties of the mind. [None]

2. The faculties of the body. [None]

3. Character. [Christ’s character was perfect in an absolute sense. Ours, in a relative sense.]

4. The appetites and passions. [There is a difference if there is an imbalance because of previous indulgence.]

5. The clamorings of the flesh. [Seems also to refer to the physical aspect, and are different if there is an imbalance because of previous indulgence.]