Rosangela, thank you. But how do the faculties of the body differ from the appetites and passions?

Hi, Mike. Ellen White uses the expression "faculties of the body" just once, referring to the physical powers which can be exercised. Therefore, this expression doesn't seem to refer to appetites and passions.

"The time spent in physical exercise is not lost. The student who is constantly poring over his books, while he takes but little exercise in the open air, does himself an injury. A proportionate exercise of the various organs and faculties of the body is essential to the best work of each. When the brain is constantly taxed, while the other organs are left inactive, there is a loss of physical and mental strength. The physical powers are robbed of their healthy tone, the mind loses its freshness and vigor, and a morbid excitability is the result." {MYP 239.1}

Thanks for your responses here, Rosangela. My original characterization of your position is not in brackets; your comments are in brackets.





How are things of the mind passed genetically? Assuming this is by way of genes, your idea is that certain aspects of the genetic code were filtered out so as not to impact Christ, whereas others were left unfiltered? Or does this mechanism work in some other way?



Since we're talking about fallen nature here, how would the physical/emotional appetites and passions of fallen flesh differ from that of Adam's flesh before he fell?



What was said was that His flesh had tendencies to sin, by which He could be tempted, just as we can be. I'm not understanding why you would bring up the Christ was not tempted by indwelling sin. Why do you feel this is a point that would need to be made?



I understood from a previous discussion that you believed all of Christ's temptations came from Satan.

How would you say that the world world would tempt Christ? Wouldn't His nature be naturally disposed against anything having to do with the world?



How could Christ's nature be inclined to satisfy His ambition? Wouldn't His nature be inclined to do the reverse? (i.e. to deny Himself, as opposed to satisfying His ambitions; to satisfy His Father's ambitions would be what His nature was inclined to do)



A couple of questions here.

It sounds like you're suggesting she was indirectly correcting them? But that wouldn't really apply since they (Jones, Prescott, Waggoner, Haskell) never taught that Christ had a taint of sin, right?

Do you see that EGW believed in original sin? It's sounds like your theology is that of original sin. I see you saying that God condemns newborns because they have a taint of sin which is passed down from Adam. Is that correct?

In fact, it seems one of your arguments is that Christ could not have taken our sinful nature because then He would have had a taint of sin.

I don’t know, but Ellen White says that they are (which, as far as I know, is a concept not accepted by science; personality traits are believed to be passed genetically, not character traits).

“The parents give the stamp of character to their children. Therefore children that are born of these parents inherit from them qualities of mind which are of a low, base order.” {RH, September 26, 1899 par. 4}


I don’t know what happened, nor how it happened. What I do know is that all of us are born carnally-minded, but Christ wasn’t.

One of the aspects of man which were affected by sin was the will. About it, Ellen White says,

“The fall of our first parents broke the golden chain of implicit obedience of the human will to the divine. Obedience has no longer been deemed an absolute necessity.” Manuscript 1, 1892. {RC 56.5}

“Christ declared, ‘I came ... not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me’ (John 6:38). His will was put into active exercise to save the souls of men. His human will was nourished by the divine.” --MS 48, 1899. (HC 107.)

“Jesus Christ is our example in all things. He began life, passed through its experiences, and ended its record, with a sanctified human will.” {ST, October 29, 1894 par. 7}

One difference between Him and us is that we do not begin life with a sanctified human will. This only happens at the new birth.


“By the fall, man was brought into bondage to sin. He lost his moral uprightness and his physical perfection. The appetites and passions that were given to him as blessings were perverted, and became warring lusts, the ministers of death.” {PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 3}

Until we are born again, our appetites and passions cannot be under the control of reason.


Because sinful tendencies, both inherited and cultivated, are indwelling sin.


The temptations of the world are, many times, the temptations we are faced with by living in the world. Christ was tempted to demonstrate to people who He really was; He was tempted to silence their insolence, etc.


He had come to gain possession of the kingdoms of this world. This was His ambition, and was the Father’s ambition, too. However, the temptation consisted in obtaining this in an easier, yet wrong, way.


Did they never teach Christ was born with a taint of sin?


Are babies born condemned, or aren’t they?

I don't think it's necessary to interpret this statement in a way which is contrary to what science recognizes. That is, inheritance needn't be genetic.

Here she says "the parents give the stamp of character to their children." We know from experience, this is true, and we know how. There's no mystery here. It's through their influence.

Many things can be inherited from parents which are not genetic, such as, for example, an inheritance.

Looking again at the statement she says, "The parents give the stamp of character to their children. Therefore ..." Again, how do parents give the stamp of character to their children? A natural reading of this statement would not be that parents give the stamp of character to their children genetically.



How do you know we are born carnally-minded?

Regarding the quotes you cited, I don't know why you cited them. Do any of them say we are born carnally-minded, but Christ wasn't?

Here's one of the quotes:



You reason from this, "One difference between Him and us is that we do not begin life with a sanctified human will." One could just as validly reason from this sentence that Christ was the only one who "ended its record" with a sanctified human will. The logic would be identical.

Notice how the text here starts: "Jesus Christ is our example in all things."



Does this in some way disagree with anything Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, or any other SDA contemporaries of EGW taught?



Tendencies are tendencies. They are not sin. They may be the result of sin, but unless they are acted on, they are not sin.



I'm not understanding how this would work. Wouldn't Christ's nature have been repulsed by anything the world would offer it?

You mentioned two examples. Could you flesh them out a bit? I'm not seeing this. Take the second one. Christ was tempted to silence their insolence? How? What was He tempted to do? Why would it be a temptation? Do you mean tempted to lose His patience, like we are? But how does this work, without assuming our fallen nature? His nature would be like God's, wouldn't it? God isn't tempted to lose His patience, right?

I know you could say that God cannot be tempted, and Jesus could be tempted because He became a human being, but there's nothing inherent in being a human being that would make one susceptible to losing one's patience. Take Adam before the fall. He wouldn't have been tempted to lose his patience, would he?



Didn't He come to establish the kingdom of God? He relinquished any claim to the kingdoms of this world. He said, "I am not of this world."

Satan showed Christ the kingdoms of this world, and He immediately turned His head away. I'm not understanding how the kingdoms of this world, apart from considering Christ's flesh, would have the least interest for Him.



Yes (they never taught that). At least, I'm not aware of anyone's having said that, and would be very surprised if any SDA (outside of Baker) ever applied that to Christ.



Does this question mean "yes"? (regarding "is this correct"?)

Babies are born restored to favor with God.



The whole race, including babies, was restored to favor with God.



Infants are included in this pronouncement from God, which embraces humanity.

I agree with that babies need a Savior, but they have a Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Savior of all men. So, having a Savior, having been restored to favor with God, why should they be characterized as being born condemned?

A double standard, huh? Inherited tendencies to evil are genetically inherited, but inherited low qualities of mind are not genetically inherited? Of course both are synonyms and both are inherited from parents before birth.


No, it’s through pre-natal inheritance.

“Children are born with the animal propensities largely developed, the parents' own stamp of character having been given to them.” {CG 442.1}


“The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked.” {TDG 34.3}

The law of God is the standard of truth and virtue, and we are born with a disinclination to these things. Also, we are “born with inherent propensities of disobedience” (13MR 18.1) – of course disobedience to God and His law. And the Bible says that “the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7).


Does the text say Christ began life with a sanctified human will? Answer: Yes.
Are we born with a sanctified human will? Answer: No.
Is this a difference between Him and us? Yes or No?


What is indwelling sin?
Ellen White equates it with tendencies to evil:

“In what consisted the strength of the assault made upon Adam, which caused his fall? It was not his indwelling sin; for God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. There were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, no corrupt propensities of tendencies to evil.” {16MR 86.2}


Why not? Even God’s patience has a limit. Why would human patience be unlimited?


No. Read Revelation 11:15.

“The time was to come when Jesus should redeem the possession of Satan by giving His own life, and, after a season, all in heaven and earth should submit to Him. Jesus was steadfast. He chose His life of suffering, His ignominious death, and, in the way appointed by His Father, to become a lawful ruler of the kingdoms of the earth, and have them given into His hands as an everlasting possession.” {1SM 287.3}


Sure they taught it, for sinful tendencies are a taint of sin.


Of course they need a Savior exactly because they are born condemned, otherwise they wouldn’t need a Savior.

The following quotes pertain to the flesh body:


Based on these quotes, here is what I discovered about the flesh body:

1. The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it.
2. Our natural inclinations and appetites were divinely appointed, and when given to man, were pure and holy.
3. God implanted the will, the appetite, and the passions in our nature for high and holy purposes.
4. When they are regulated and controlled by a sanctified reason, they are holiness unto the Lord.
5. It was God’s design that reason should rule the appetites, and that they should minister to our happiness.
6. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience.
7. Human nature is ever struggling for expression, ready for contest; but he who learns of Christ is emptied of self, of pride, of love of supremacy, and there is silence in the soul.
8. You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. The voice and passions must be crucified.
9. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.
10. We must crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts, by putting to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness.

So, our flesh body generates and communicates unholy thoughts and feelings, which are nothing more than perversions of innocent and legitimate physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. In Christ, born again believers are empowered from within to partake of the divine nature and act out innocent and legitimate needs unto the honor and glory of God our Father.

Our fallen flesh nature will continue to strive for the mastery, continue to generate and communicate unholy thoughts and feelings, but while abiding in Jesus we are free to live in harmony with the will of God. This is the state in which Jesus lived as a man.

"The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." However, if we conclude that the "flesh" referred to here is talking about the flesh mind, rather than the flesh body, we are forced to conclude something that is unbiblical, namely, that we cannot act contrary to the will of God in our mind.

Sure. That's why I pointed out that there are two meanings for the word "flesh" - the body and the carnal mind. The body, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God. It's the mind which acts contrary to the will of God, commanding the body to do wrong things.

The sinful tendencies are in the heart (mind), not in the body.

“What is it to sow to the flesh? It is to follow the desires and inclinations of our own natural hearts. Whatever may be our profession, if we are serving self instead of God we are sowing to the flesh. ... What are you sowing in your daily life? Are you sowing to your flesh? Are you thinking only of your pleasure, your convenience? sowing to pride and vanity and ambition?" {TMK 92.3}

“We must put forth earnest effort to overcome the evil tendencies of the natural heart.” {NL 62.6}

“The change which must come to the natural, inherited, and cultivated tendencies of the human heart, is that change of which Jesus spoke when he said to Nicodemus, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’" {PH080 43.1}

I wouldn't characterize it as a double standard, but as a dash of common sense. If there are two possible interpretations, and one suggests something considered scientifically impossible, and the other doesn't, why not go with the one that doesn't? Occam's razor again. It seems to me you like to swim upstream a lot, against the tide of Occam's razor (how's that for a mixed metaphor? )



Tendencies to evil can be inherited genetically or non-genetically, depending upon how the term "inherited" is being used. If I am a parent, and I have a bad temper, I can pass that bad temper to my child. He inherits it from me. I've stamped my character on him. That doesn't necessarily mean I've passed him a gene.

There are certain things which science recognizes can be passed genetically, and others things which aren't. You've recognized your interpretation is not in harmony with science. I'm suggesting one which is. Both are linguistically viable.



This is a different quote from before, isn't it? The first one says "RH, September 26, 1899 par. 4" and this one says "CG 442.1". At any rate, the same principle would apply to pre-natal influences. Pre-natal influences are not necessarily genetic. For example, if the mother is taking drugs, that has an impact on the child. Similarly the mother would pass one other influences to the child. The father influences the mother, and so has an impact on the child as well.

This particular quote looks to be dealing with the flesh anyway, so that could be genetic.

In summary, I see no need to interpret EGW in a way which conflicts with science in regards to genetics.

Regarding carnally minded,

1.We have a nature which is inclined to act contrary to the law of God.
2.When we give in to that nature, we develop a carnal mind.
3.To be carnally-minded implies a participation in sin.
4.Christ assumed our sinful nature, with the same liabilities, inclincations, tendencies, susceptabilities, whatever word you want to us, as ours has.
5.Just as in our case, this assumed human nature would have led Christ to sin, had Christ not denied Himself.
6.Christ always denied Himself, and never developed a carnal mind.
7.No SDA said that Christ had a carnal mind or was carnally-minded. If being carnally minded were equivalent to having genetic tendencies to sin, it would have been asserted that Christ had a carnal mind. Since no one asserted this, it's clear they viewed having a carnal mind as something different than having genetic tendencies to sin.

You are suggesting:

1.Ellen White used language and arguments which her contemporaries understood one way, but she actually meant in another.
2.Ellen White endorsed those using arguments and language which disagreed with hers.
3.Naturally, those who received these endorsements, and those who read them, would assume that the views she was endorsing were true.
4.Ellen White was well aware of how her contemporaries understood her language and arguments, that they did so incorrectly, but she never directly corrected them; instead, she directly endorsed them.
5.But she did correct an obscure figure in Australia, who was teaching the same wrong ideas.
6.The proof that she had in mind these different meanings in the language and arguments that she uses necessitates believing that she is making fundamental errors in regards to the science of genetics.

This all seems very unlikely to me. Why not adopt an interpretation of her language that agrees with how her contemporaries understood her, and with science?

Setting aside our present disagreement, just, in general, *anyone* suggesting an interpretation of an historic figure's language and arguments which is different than how that figure's contemporaries would have understood him or her must be viewed as suspect. It's not likely to be correct.



Is there some statement which says that it is not possible for human beings, other than Christ, to be born with a sancrified will? If there's not, why do you think this is not possible?

The difference, from Ellen White's quote, that she is getting at is not that Christ entered life's record with a sanctified human will, but that He never sinned; that is, He passed through His entire life with a sanctified human will. But she precedes this statement in saying that Christ is an example for us. You seem to be inferring from this quote that Christ was genetically different than the rest of us, which seems to be taking the quote out of context and making it try to say something it's not even addressing.



That's similar to this one:



So we see that Christ's situation was different than Adam's. We see, on the one hand, that Adam had no "indwelling sin" or "corrupt principles" or "tendencies to evil" but Christ bore "the likeness of sinful flesh."



God's patience has no limit in the sense we are talking of here, where we just lose our patience. "Love is patient. Love is kind." God no more loses His patience than He loses His kindness. There comes a time when, due to a persistent resistance to the Holy Spirit, where God must withdraw, and in this sense it is said that a limit to God's forbearance is reached, but this is as far from the idea that God just "loses His patience" as heaven is above the earth.

Impatience is a sin.



You wrote, "He had come to gain possession of the kingdoms of this world. This was His ambition, and was the Father’s ambition, too."

This isn't true at all.



Christ came to establish the kingdom of God, whose principles are the opposite of those of the kingdoms of this world. It could hardly have been His ambition to gain possession of kingdoms founded on principles the exact opposite of those of the kingdom He was seeking to establish. Which leads back to the original question, how could the kingdoms of this world, which are established on principles which are the opposite of the kingdom He was seeking to establish, have been any temptation whatsoever to Christ? (apart from His flesh)



This is completely circular. You are simply asserting what you wish to be the case.

Ellen White's contemporaries did not have this idea. What evidence can you produce to suggest otherwise? Can you cite one time where they said that Christ had a taint of sin? Or one time where they equated "taint of sin" with genetic tendencies to sin?




They have a Savior! I pointed this out in writing "I agree with that babies need a Savior, but they have a Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Savior of all men."

They are born restored to favor with God, and having a Savior. So why do you characterize them as being born condemned?

Rosangela, I'm having a hard time making sense of what you posted above. It sounds like you're saying - "The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." - should be interpreted to mean - "It's the mind which acts contrary to the will of God, commanding the body to do wrong things."

In context, however, isn't it clear she's talking about the flesh body, not the flesh mind? We are supposed to use the mind of the new man to control the carnal lusts and affections, which have their seat in the body, right? Here's the quote again:

AH 127, 128
The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but 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. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2}

If she is talking about the flesh mind, rather than the flesh body, wouldn't it make more sense to say so? Instead, she speaks about the body being the seat of the animal passions. She asks if we crucify the affections and lusts by harming the body. Her answer indicates she's talking about the lower, corrupt nature which works through the body.

In other words, the tempting affections and lusts we are supposed to resist originate in the body. We're supposed to reign them in, keep them under control, by partaking of the divine nature. We become aware of the unholy clamorings which war against us through the faculties of the mind. With these same faculties, imbued by God, we are able to resist acting them out in thought, word, or deed.

If she is talking about the flesh mind acting contrary to the will of God by making us act out in the flesh body the affections and lusts of the flesh mind, then which is which? Are we born again with the flesh mind and body, or with just the flesh body? If we are born again with just the flesh body, then does that mean the flesh mind is dead?

If flesh mind is dead, how, then, can it continue to tempt us from within? Are we born again with two hearts, with two minds, with both the mind/heart of the old man and the new man? Does Jesus share the throne of our soul temple with Satan? "The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne." (ibid) Also, how do the following texts fit in?

Romans
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Galatians
5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.