Be safe while you're away. Look forward to continuing this study.

Yes, I agree that the lower and higher powers of human nature are separate and distinct aspects. I also agree with Plato that real happiness is realized only when the lower powers are ruled by the higher powers, so long as we are living in harmony with the will of God.

Our lower powers are corrupt. They clamor for sinful expression. They tempt us from within to satisfy our innocent and legitimate needs in a sinful way. For example, when we feel hungry, sinful flesh tempts us from within to eat this or that without reference to truth or temperance. Thus it is with all of our appetites and passions.

We become consciously aware of the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh in the mind of our new man, and by exercising the higher powers of reason and conscience we partake of the divine nature, which empowers us to use our sanctified higher powers to satisfy our physical, emotional, and spiritual needs in ways that honor and glorify God.

Doesn't this make more sense than saying we are born again double-minded, that we are reborn with both the mind of the old man and the mind of the new man?

MM, regarding #99389, I think Christ had a self which had to be denied, just as we do. Paul writes that Christ "pleased not Himself." (Rom. 15:3 I think). Jesus said that He came not to do His own will, but the will of One who sent Him. He said for us to deny ourself, to take up our cross, and to follow Him. I see these things as being the result of His taking our sinful nature.

Regarding fleshly lusts, the word "lust" simply means "desire" in the archaic English of the KJV. We give it a more sinister meaning than it had in the Greek. The "desires of the flesh" may mean the desires of our sinful nature, desires we receive genetically, which Christ also had, or it may refer to desires of the flesh which we have cultivated by participation in sin, which, of course, Christ did not do. However, Christ took our sin upon Him, so even these had an impact upon Him in His temptation.

Regarding "carnal mind," I believe that refers to the mind that is developed by yielding to the "desires of the flesh".

Rosangela, you said something back about what you thought partaking of the divine nature meant. I asked you to repeat this, but I don't think you did. I sure hope I'm not making you say this a third time! Anyway, please share your thought on this again, as I thought it was an interesting one. I wanted to think about it some more, but I can't recall quite what you said.

Thank you, Tom, for sharing these clarifications. I agree. I think there are two sets of each - a sinless set and a sinful set. In other words, there are sinless and sinful appetites and passions, sinless and sinful lusts and affections.

Jesus was born with both sets. We are born only with the sinful set, but we are born again with the ability to partake of the sinless set. In the cases of Jesus and born again believers, they are empowered to use their faculties of mind and body to resist the clamorings of the sinful set by partaking of the sinless set, that is, the divine nature.

Mike, this is figurative language. Both the Bible and Ellen White say we must die daily. How can one die daily? Our death to self does not occur once for all. We must die daily to self, crucify it daily, experience a daily conversion.

“You need to die daily, to experience a daily crucifixion to self.” {3T 323.3}

"It is essential to live by every word of God, else our old nature will constantly reassert itself." {RH, October 12, 1897 par. 7}


Our internal foes don’t have to do only with physical passions. They have to do with moral sinful passions – every trait of character that is unlike the character of Jesus.

“If we will trust Him, and commit our ways to Him, He will direct our steps in the very path that will result in our obtaining the victory over every evil passion, and every trait of character that is unlike the character of our divine Pattern.” {OHC 316.5}

It’s not contrary to what science teaches, it’s simply beyond the realm of science. Of course science can’t say anything about the transmission of “sinful” tendencies.


The EGW quotes already posted make it abundantly clear that “self,” “flesh,” and “carnal mind” are synonyms.


Yes, it’s the third time! I think my original comment you refer to is already repeated in my post #99259, of Sunday, May 11.

I like this very much. What made you think of this? Can you support it from inspiration in some way, or is it a thought you had that you thought made sense in terms of how the phrase "partake of the divine nature" is used.



I was referring to what you said in regards to Ellen White's teachings about something, maybe qualities of the mind, which you said you realized was not what science taught. Something like that. It's been awhile back, and I'm too tired to hunt for it.



They can be synonyms, depending upon the context, but they needn't be. For example, did Christ have a self? Did He have flesh? Did He have a carnal mind? I don't think you would answer these questions the same way.

Many passages give hints about this, among them:

"God said in the beginning, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;’ but sin has almost obliterated the moral image of God in man. ... We must study, and copy, and follow the Lord Jesus Christ; ... Thus we shall stand before God with acceptance, and win back by conflict with the principalities of darkness, the power of self-control, and the love of God that Adam lost in the fall. Through Christ we may possess the spirit of love and obedience to the commands of God. Through his merits it may be restored in our fallen natures. {ST, December 22, 1887 par. 2}

"But the Father so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that through His smitten heart a channel might be found for the outflowing of infinite love for fallen man. Man had become so degraded by sin, his nature so perverted by evil, that it was impossible for him of himself to come into harmony with God, whose nature is purity and love. But Christ redeemed him from the condemnation of the law, and imparted divine power, and through man's cooperation, the sinner could be restored to his lost estate." {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 11}

"Christ came to our world because He saw that men had lost the image and nature of God. He saw that they had wandered far from the path of peace and purity, and that, if left to themselves, they would never find their way back. He came with a full and complete salvation, to change our stony hearts to hearts of flesh, to change our sinful natures into His similitude, that, by being partakers of the divine nature, we might be fitted for the heavenly courts."--Youth's Instructor, Sept. 9, 1897. {YRP 24.3}


Yes, it was in relation to qualities of mind. By “qualities of mind,” Ellen White may be referring to mental abilities or, more probably, to moral traits. In the latter case she would be referring to sinful tendencies, a subject which is beyond the realm of science, for science doesn't say anything about a person inheriting from his/her parents, for instance, a tendency for self-indulgence, or greed, or any other sin.


Yes, I would, because I'm referring to the three expressions in this particular sense, and Christ never had a sinful self, fleshly lusts, or a carnal mind.

"Christ did not need to fast for forty days because of inward corruption, or to subdue self. He was sinless. It was on our account that He fasted." {21MR 11.4}

"Every indulgence of perverted appetite is a fleshly lust which wars against the soul." {4MR 385.3}
(Christ never indulged perverted appetite.)

R: The EGW quotes already posted make it abundantly clear that “self,” “flesh,” and “carnal mind” are synonyms.
T: They can be synonyms, depending upon the context, but they needn't be. For example, did Christ have a self? Did He have flesh? Did He have a carnal mind? I don't think you would answer these questions the same way.



What you're writing here is simply confirming my point. The words are not synonyms in general, but they may be in special circumstances. You are qualifying the words. For example, "self" becomes "sinful self," "flesh," becomes "fleshly lusts".

That Ellen White sometimes used these words in a similar way does not mean they are synonyms. What about the times when she doesn't use the words similarly?

"Self" and "flesh," for example, are expressing different concepts.

Regarding Ellen White and science, is it your contention that she teaches something contrary to what science teaches, or simply that science is not addressing the point in question that you raised? If it's the latter, it would be good to phrase things in an unambiguous manner. For example, saying, "I realize what Ellen White says here is not what science teaches" is ambiguous. I would take this as meaning that you are asserting that Ellen White taught something contrary to science. If you said, "Ellen White's thought here is something not addressed by science," that would be clear.

Anyway, to your claim that science does not address the question of genetic tendencies to sin, it does address this, although the findings are very controversial. There's general agreement about how genes work and how tendencies are passed. The controversy comes into what should be included and what shouldn't be, and how much. (e.g. how much weight should be given to genetics for something like tendencies to homosexuality).

Ending on a positive note, that you could come up with the insight you did just based on the passages you cite is a nice accomplishment. Sounds like you had help! (I'm thinking of divine help, lest you get the wrong idea).

The divine nature is God's nature of love. That has a ring of truth to it.

Rosangela, don't you think the expression - I die daily - means making a decision every day to leave our cultivated old man traits of character dead and buried, rather than resurrecting them?

Also, do you think we can cooperate with God and eventually eliminate our internal foes so that they no longer tempt us from within to be unlike Jesus? Is this what she is inferring in the following passages?

"He came with a full and complete salvation, to change our stony hearts to hearts of flesh, to change our sinful natures into His similitude, that, by being partakers of the divine nature, we might be fitted for the heavenly courts."--Youth's Instructor, Sept. 9, 1897. {YRP 24.3}

"The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit. {DA 172.1}