In my opinion she is speaking of both here – the same word, but referring to two different things. I think she is trying to show that "flesh," the flesh the Bible commands us to crucify, cannot simply mean the body, but the carnal mind.

Take these two sentences:

"The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God."
"We are commanded to crucify the flesh."

What does “flesh” mean in the first sentence? What cannot act contrary to the will of God? Isn’t it the body?

But what does “flesh” mean in the second sentence? What are commanded to crucify? The body? Or the carnal mind?

Tom,

The crux of our disagreement is the way we see the condition of sinful man. I see sinful man as being born carnally minded, at enmity with God and His law, out of harmony with God’s image and character, with a will not in harmony with the will of God, a partaker of the satanic nature instead of a partaker of the divine nature. This was not Christ’s condition. His human will was nourished and sanctified by His divine will. His divine nature was in God’s image, was a nature of love, was a mind of love, was a character of love, and His human nature resided in it. What happened in His life, owing to the union between the human and the divine, happens in our lives when we are born again. The difference is that it happens gradually in us, because it takes time for us to learn to remain in Christ. Additionally, because we have an old nature (a carnal mind which Christ didn’t have), it must be kept in subjection until Christ comes.

“When man sinned, all heaven was filled with sorrow; for through yielding to temptation, man became the enemy of God, a partaker of the satanic nature. The image of God in which he had been created was marred and distorted. The character of man was out of harmony with the character of God; for through sin man became carnal, and the carnal heart is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. ... Out of harmony with the nature of God, unyielding to the claims of His law, naught but destruction was before the human race. Since the divine law is as changeless as the character of God, there could be no hope for man unless some way could be devised whereby his transgression might be pardoned, his nature renewed, and his spirit restored to reflect the image of God.” {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 6,7}

“In transgression Adam became a law to himself. By disobedience he was brought under bondage. Thus a discordant element, born of selfishness, entered man's life. Man's will and God's will no longer harmonized. Adam had united with the disloyal forces, and self-will took the field.” {ST, June 13, 1900 par. 3}

I agree with this, except for the "born" part. Man is born with a nature which is inclined towards these things, but until one actually performs the sinful act, the carnal mind remains something potential. One the person accedes to these temptations, then I agree with your characterization.



I agree, since Christ never gave into the temptations of His flesh, or any other temptations.



By "His divine will" do you mean the divine will of His Father? If not, you recall the quotes saying that if Christ had any advantage in his fight against Satan that we don't have, Satan would make capital of that, don't you? Being able to nourish and sanctify one's human will by one's own divine will would certainly fall in that category.



This sounds like saying we have to do something Christ didn't have to do. It certainly sounds like our path is more difficult than His. I also don't understand how what Christ did could have made it possible for us to overcome, in this scenario, given that we have a sinful nature that needs to be kept in subjection, but Christ didn't.

Anyway, back to your original comment, that the crux of our difference is the way we see sinful man, I think how we consider historical context in the course of interpreting an author's work is at least as big a difference. You appear to simply read the text with no mind as to how the author's contemporaries understood the meaning of the author, which I don't think is a viable way to approach things.

I've given the example of Lincoln. If we were to try to understand what Lincoln meant by a certain phrase or argument, certainly we would consider carefully what his contemporaries understood the phrases and arguments to be. If there was a unanimous understanding of these, one would be very hard pressed to suggest some alternative explanation, don't you think?

Please pardon my butting in here, but how could it possibly be that "flesh" on one sentence means one thing, and in the very next sentence, which is a continuing explanation of the thought, means something different?



Clearly both sentence 2 and 3 are continuing to explain the topic sentence of the paragraph, which is "The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it."

She explains:



The mind controls the flesh. This is plain to see.

This exactly is the crux of the disagreement.


Yes and No. Not only the will of the Father. His divine will was the will of all the three members of the Godhead, in the same way that His divine power was the power of all the three members of the Godhead.
Satan wouldn’t have made capital of that, because the same happens to us after we are born again – we are united with the divinity, in the same way that He was.


We do have a carnal mind which Christ didn’t have, and which is just crucified, not eliminated, at conversion, and which tries constantly to reassert itself. Besides, passions and inclinations are in the mind, or heart. Do you disagree with this?

“As he [man] ceases to watch and pray, he ceases to guard the citadel --the heart--and is betrayed into sin and crime. Constant war against the carnal mind must be maintained.” {CTBH 127.3}

“Minds that have been given up to loose thought need to change. . . . The thoughts must be centered upon God. Now is the time to put forth earnest effort to overcome the natural tendencies of the carnal heart.” {Mar 243.3}

“If you would work as Christ worked, if you would overcome as he overcame, go straight to him for help needed to subdue the inclinations of the carnal mind and the passions of the natural heart.” {ST, April 1, 1897 par. 12}


The best interpreter of an author is the author's own writings, not his/her contemporaries.

2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.

What does the first word "flesh" refer to? And the second one? Let's substitute the word "flesh" with the same word in both phrases.

"For though we walk in the body, we do not war according to the body." Can this be the correct meaning?

Or,

"For though we walk in the carnal mind, we do not war according to the carnal mind." Can this be the correct meaning?

What about "For though we walk in the body, we do not war according to the carnal mind"?

The same is true for Ellen White's setences.

"The body of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God."
"We are commanded to crucify the body." Is this correct?

Or,

"The carnal mind of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God."
"We are commanded to crucify the carnal mind." Is this correct?

What about, "The body of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." "We are commanded to crucify the carnal mind"?

Rosangela, the problem, as I see it, with substituting words in the way you have suggested is that it doesn't reflect the obvious meaning of the original sentence construction. For example, the word "flesh" refers to the carnal lusts and affections. According to the Bible and the SOP, the lusts and affections that war against the Spirit and mind of the new man do not constitute sinning. Yes, they are sinful, but God does not count us guilty of sinning. Which is why she wrote - "the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God."

Our flesh nature can tempt us with unholy thoughts and feelings (lusts and affections), but it cannot actually commit a sin. Thus, we are not held accountable for the unholy thoughts and feelings it generates and communicates to our conscious new man mind. Neither we nor our flesh is sinning. It is not a sin to be tempted.

However, if we adopt your word substitution theory we create an unnatural complication. For example, you suggested we interpret it to mean - "The body of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." "We are commanded to crucify the carnal mind." But the "flesh" in this context refers to the animal propensities. "All animal propensities [the lower powers] are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul [the mind]."

With this in mind, you are asking us to consider an interpretation which forces us to conclude - The higher powers are to be subjected to the higher powers. It just doesn't make sense to me. Again, the lusts and affections originate in the body and work through it. Yes, we become aware of them in our conscious new man mind, but they do not originate in the new man mind. Are you saying we are born again with our old man mind in tact, that Jesus dwells upon a throne that is divided?

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."

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.
7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

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

AH 127
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}

True. I believe Christ was genetically like we are. So from His human side, He was like us, as far as what comes to us genetically.



I think of this the same way you do. I don't usually say "His divine will" without explaining the meaning, because it's liable to be misunderstood, but see nothing wrong with putting things that way.



Before you said passions and appetites are in the flesh, so you must mean that some passions are in the flesh and some in the heart I guess.

We have certain tendencies which are passed to us genetically, and other tendencies which we cultivate. The same could be said for passions and appetites. Christ followed the law of heredity, so whatever inclinations, passions, and appetites are passed to us genetically Christ had. As Prescott put it, what flesh could He take but the flesh which was present at the time?

So Christ had to crucify the flesh, just as we must.

In regards to having a carnal mind, Christ did not have that, but He took our sin upon Him, which had an impact upon His mind, as our sin has an impact on ours. So you could say that He crucified our carnal mind.



Both are important. If the author's contemporaries did not understand the author's language and arguments in the same way a modern person is thinking, that's a real good hint that the modern person is not on the right track.

So, MM, you want the old man mind in tact and revivable for tempting us, but not alive and sharing space & power with Christ's presence in our lives? After all we are supposed to entertain the old heart's presence until we are changed in the twinkling of an eye: that's the heart of the two covenants' truth...

You weren't leaving a hint, were you, of the old heart not hanging around at all? It is agreed that neither should we serve two masters nor do we have both old and new hearts reigning simultaneously in our new, spiritual life.

Right, lads, can we reconcile Jesus being the Saviour of the world (so, Tom, your "restored to favour with God" is a legal, group event, not a personal, faith event) with the world being populated by sinful humans?

Human nature is condemned to eternal death for its sinfulness, fully mortal, as a matter of legal course, whether we sin or not - Jesus being the example and antitype of his brethern. This is the legal quality of human nature and doesn't depend on our actions. Jesus as Saviour of the world redeems humans, not human nature, so, having a Saviour because he is the Saviour, before we also come to like being his redeemed - in becoming children of God, affects our identity and potentially our spiritual, moral outlook but not our nature.

Tom, as much as you and I disagree with Rosangela about the basis of the carnal mind, you and I disagree about human nature's condemned sinfulness. Babies need and have a Saviour: you're avoiding the need, because you object to eternal damnation being based also on the law regarding human nature - allowing only for sinful choices to be final. Human nature is no fault of ours, but it is our problem which Jesus solved by his death and his life - each meeting demands of the law.