Lesson #3 - The Reality of His HUMANITY

Here is the link to the study and discussion material for this study in preparation for the April 19th Sabbath School Class discussion:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/08b/less03nkjv.html

The Memory Text:

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14, NIV).

From the Sabbath Afternoon section:

And then there is this statement in the Sabbath Afternoon section:

This will probably be covered later on in the lesson study material.

I'm teaching the lesson for the teens, so do not have the adult lesson. I wonder how the human nature of Christ is treated. Probably with egg shells. It's astounding to me that this question is one which causes disagreement in our church.

The link to the study material is the adult lesson.

Tuesday's is titled He Took Our Nature (Gal. 4:4).

I read through it a couple of weeks ago. The controversial stuff is not addressed at all.

I don't think the disagreement is really about Christ's nature. I think the essence of the disagreement is in hamartiology.

Well, there can be more than one set of disagreements. I've very interested in your thoughts here, Arnold. Please explain.

Without going into too much detail at this time....

Everyone is pretty much agreed that Jesus came in the flesh, and that He did not sin. The point of difference is the precise definition of sin, because I think everyone believes Jesus was to the sinless side of that point by an infinitesimal amount.

So, for those who believe that inherent propensities to sin do not count as sin, they believe that Jesus had those propensities. Those who believe that such propensities are sin do not believe Jesus had them.

There are those who believe selfishness is not sin, as long as you do not perform selfish acts. Such people can believe that Jesus had selfishness, but He did not act on them. Those who believe that selfishness, acted out or not, is inherently sinful do not believe Jesus had selfishness.

When you do something against the law, but you did not know it was against the law, is that sin? IOW, is volition a necessary ingredient of sin? That's another dividing line.

There are many individual points of contention. But as I see it, the general problem is that there is no agreement on a precise definition of sin.

Is this really what you meant to say? "Infinitesimal" means by an amount infinitely small, which is to say, an amount so small that no smaller amount could be found.



As the SOP uses the word "propensities," actually participation in sin is implied, so I don't think anyone on either side of the question believes that Christ had these propensities. For example, the Baker letter states:





I don't know anyone who believes this either, that is, that Jesus Christ had selfishness. Keeping with the usage the SOP uses with an analagous term, "sinlessness," one could not say that Christ "had" selfishness, as this would imply He was selfish.

To explain further, from the SOP we read:



She also wrote:



So she wrote that Christ took our sinful nature (she never says Christ took a sinless human nature), but we should have no misgivings in regard to the sinlessness of that sinful human nature. Now that sounds like an oxymoron, or a contradiction, but it's not, as one considers how she uses these terms.



Christ took our nature in its fallen condition, but did not least

participate in its sin. Since she also writes



it seems evident that what she means is that Christ, while taking fallen, or sinful, human nature never acted contrary to the will of God, even though He took such a nature.

Getting back to how she uses the word "sinlessness," she uses that in relation to actual participation in sin. Christ never participated in sin. Again:



The following statement makes it clear that the sinless being spoken of is not in regards to the human nature we inherit:



There are those who by faith in Christ will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression, but their sinful, inherited human nature will not be changed, until corruption is changed into incorruption at Christ's Second Coming.

So we see that the "ness" at the end of the word implies participation in acts of righteousness, when attached to "sinless," and is not a static characteristic of an inherited nature. Similarly "selfishness" would imply, at least in terms of how Ellen White wrote, a participation in selfish acts, which, of course, we could not ascribe to Christ. So one could not say, in harmony with EGW's usage, that Christ "had selfishness," but I suppose one could say that Christ took a "selfish human nature," since she used terms like "sinful" "fallen" and "degraded" in reference to the human nature which Christ took, or inherited.

It may be that someone (like Denis Priebe has been accused of saying) may believe that Christ "had selfishness," but I would disagree with this statement, at least in terms of how EGW uses similar language, and this statement, which is just a statement by one human being, is by no means typical of those who believe the position that our church articulated regarding the human nature of Christ until at least 1947 was correct.

I believe one of the most significant things Ellen White wrote on this subject is the following:



What makes this statement so significant is its context. She had been preaching with Jones and Waggoner, the three of them preaching righteousness by faith together, and questions had been coming up in regards to what was being taught regarding Christ's human nature. Christ's human nature was a part of the 1888 message which Jones and Waggoner taught, and here we see EGW preaching along with them and defending the position which they presented.

I don't think the question of the precise meaning of sin is so much the question as so much the nature of Christ's flesh, in particular, in relation to Christ's temptations. For example, I myself would not define sin as being limited to the volitional definition, yet I believe that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature.

In regards to temptation, our heredity enters into our temptation. We have tendencies to sin which were inherited from our ancestors. Did Christ share in such a heredity as we have? Did he inherit tendencies to sin from His ancestors? Did His heredity enter into His temptations as our heredity enters into ours? This is where I think the real question lies.

Tom,

I'm trying very hard not to revive this controversy at this time, because I am very short on time these days. But you're making it very hard.

Just a quickie this time.


I disagree. "Propensity" does not imply participation, but a tendency.


Surely, we cannot be born having already participated in sin.

That is, unless we accept that vicarious/imputed sin counts. If so, then with only Jesus as the exception, all have sinned (aorist tense) and fall short of the glory of God. But that is usually anathema to postlapsarians.


That's from the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Note that there is no mention of participation, but only tendencies and inclinations.

In all the years I've heard it claimed that EGW used "propensity" to denote actual participation in sin, I have not seen one contemporary reference that uses it that way.

I think propensity comes from the Latin "propendere" which means "to hang down," and that the Oxford dictionary defines it that way.

Regardless of how one defines it, your claim that one side says that Christ had propensities cannot be true if that side denies that this is the case.

In trying to avoid controversy, it would be good to represent the situation in a way in which both sides can agree with what is said (not regarding what is true, but that the thoughts of both sides are being accurately presented). Here's my attempt:

a)One side says that Ellen White's view of the human nature of Christ is that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature, and that His heredity was the same as ours. This includes the ability to be tempted in all points as we are, including by way of tendencies to sin that have been inherited.

b)The other side denies this to be the case, emphasizing that the human nature which Christ took was like ours in some respects, but unlike ours in others. In particular, Christ did not inherit any tendencies to sin.

So I think the real question comes down to Christ's heredity, in particular in relation to the question of temptation.

The physical part of our being cannot be “selfish.” This can only refer to the mind.


The points on which any human being can be tempted do not depend on heredity. They are appetite, the love of the world and the love of display which leads to presumption. These were the points on which Adam and Eve were tempted, and the points on which we are tempted, too.

“With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us.” {DA 116.4}

“His [Christ’s] first test was on the same point where Adam failed. It was through temptations addressed to the appetite that Satan had overcome a large proportion of the human race, and his success had made him feel that the control of this fallen planet was in his hands. But in Christ he found one who was able to resist him, and he left the field of battle a conquered foe.” {Te 20.1}

Christ took a sinful human nature, so why couldn't we say He took a selfish human nature? What's the difference?



The ones dependent upon heredity do.



Not only are we tempted on these points, but we have a heredity which predisposes us to be susceptible to these temptations.



These quotes are dealing with areas upon which Christ was tempted. There are also quotes which deal with the nature Christ took, in which He met these temptations. For example:





Where we the results shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors? Murder, adultery, and every sort of vice and sin. Christ was made of the seed ("spermatos") of David, according to the flesh. He came with a heredity like ours, having to fight the same battles with inherited tendencies to sin that we have to.

This was the view of Ellen White's contemporaries. We have statements from Stephen Haskell, E. J. Waggoner., W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones, and many others affirming this. We have the following from Ellen White:



She wrote this after preaching with Jones and Waggoner on the subject of Christ's human nature. She affirmed the position that she and Jones and Waggoner were presenting.

The church as a whole only had one view on this question until around 1950.

That “sinful” may refer to the physical effects of sin, while “selfish” can’t.


No, the points don’t, for they are three, and all human beings – sinless or sinful – are susceptible to them.


We are by heredity more susceptible to some temptations, but the three points appeal to all human beings without exception.


Sure. And to Ellen White “points” mean areas.


The text begins by saying,

“It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden.”

What is she referring to here? Obviously to the physical nature – the body. So this is the context of the whole paragraph.

Why? Is sin more physical than selfishness is?



John mentions three points, but Paul doesn't. The context of what Paul wrote is that we have a high priest who knows what we go through and is able to help us in time of need.



Paul wasn't talking about three points. Here's an example of how the phrase "tempted in all points as we" was understood:





Again, this isn't relevant to what Paul wrote, nor to how this phrase was understood by SDA's, as the above example shows.



She didn't quote Paul. Her quote didn't speak of Christ being tempted in all points as we are. To establish that to her the "all points" means the same thing as the three areas John mentioned, you would have to quote something from Ellen White speaking of "all points".

The "all points" was understood as in the example I gave above; not in terms of the three areas John mentioned, but in terms of inherited tendencies to sin.



Why would you jump to this conclusion? The context specifically argues against the idea that the physical body is being spoken of. I'll give two examples.

First of all, she says "what the results of this were is shown in the history of His ancestors" (not a direct quote, from memory). Now what are these results? Physical characteristics, such as being tall or short, having blue or brown eyes? Clearly her intent is in reference to the sins his ancestors created. This was a very common argument of SDA's, given in General Conference sessions.

Secondly, she says that He took such a heredity as ours in order to fight the battles that we fight, to give us an example of obedience. This can't be speaking of physical characteristics either. She's not saying that Christ did not break the law of heredity in that His hair color was brown, and in that sense He gave us an example in overcoming, because we also have hair, but that He took the tendencies to sin which are passed by His ancestors, just as is the case for us all. Otherwise He didn't fight the fight as we do, in terms of our heredity.

Her line of thought here was in opposition to what the Roman Catholic church taught, which is that Christ took Adam's nature before the fall, without any tendencies to sin. This was a common SDA argument.

No, because of the nature of the word itself. While “sinful” might refer to the effects of sin, “selfish” has a spiritual connotation.
For instance, Ellen White says,

“Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man's behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin.” {8MR 38.5}

So, subjection to sorrow, weariness, hunger, thirst and temptation is what constitutes the likeness of sinful flesh. But subjection to sorrow, weariness, hunger, thirst and temptation are not related to selfishness.


It’s evident that she applies the “all points” to the three leading temptations.

“In the wilderness of temptation Christ met the great leading temptations that would assail man. There He encountered, singlehanded, the wily, subtle foe, and overcame him. The first great temptation was upon appetite; the second, presumption; the third, love of the world. ... His [Satan’s] manifold temptations grow out of these three great leading points.” {4T 44.2}

“Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure. Here Christ overcame in the sinner's behalf, four thousand years after ... In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.” {1SM 267.3}

Besides, a series of two articles in 1902 in The Signs of the Times about Christ’s three temptations in the wilderness had as its title “In All Points Tempted Like As We Are,” and there she says,

"Before beginning His public ministry, Christ submitted to the fierce assaults of the enemy, knowing that without conflict there could be no victory. He condescended to engage in the contest under any circumstances that the foe might require. In all things He was made 'like unto His brethren.' He was 'in all points tempted like as we are.' 'In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.'" {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 4}


This refers to physical weakening, primarily.

The text says, “It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin.”

There are many quotes similar in content to the following:

“Man came from the hand of God complete in every faculty of mind and body; in perfect soundness, therefore in perfect health. It took more than two thousand years of indulgence of appetite and lustful passions to create such a state of things in the human organism as materially lessened his vital force. Through successive generations the tendency was more swiftly downward. Indulgence of appetite and passion combined, led to excess and violence; debauchery and abominations of every kind weakened the energies, and brought upon the race diseases of every type, until the vigor and glory of the first generations passed away, and, in the third generation from Adam, man began to show signs of decay. Successive generations after the flood degenerated more rapidly.” {HR, October 1, 1878 par. 1}


Yes, it can, because physical weakening implies also mental weakening, and both entail the weakening of the moral power (the power to resist temptation). Although Christ wasn’t born with sinful propensities, it seems logical that the physical and mental weakness of His body also weakened His moral power.

“It is at the time of greatest weakness that Satan assails the soul with the fiercest temptations. It was thus that he hoped to prevail over the Son of God.” {LHU 39.4}

Just as "sinful" might refer to the effects of sin, so "selfish" might refer to the effects of selfishness. That is, man's nature was changed because of Adam's sin, which caused it to have an inclination towards sin. One could just as well say that man's nature was changed because of Adam's selfishness, which caused it to have an inclination towards selfishness.

What one calls man's nature is not the important point, which is that Christ assumed it, such as it is. The human nature which Christ assumed was "identical with our own." How did He assume it? By heredity. So whatever is a part of our nature, due to our heredity, was a part of His, hence whatever tendencies to sin can be passed by heredity, He was subject to, just as we are.



If I make the statement, "I went to Brazil. While there, I visited Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo" one could hardly conclude, "So Rio de Janerio and Sao Paulo is what constitutes Brazil," yet this is what your assertion in regards to "sinful flesh" is tantamount to.

If one were to view her statement as describing what constitutes human nature, all one could validly conclude from this statement would be that sorrow, weariness, hunger and thirst are included in sinful flesh. One could not validly conclude that this is the totality of what constitutes sinful flesh. Surely you are aware that this is a logical error (as my example with Brazil illustrates).

But even the assumption that she is attempting to describe what constitutes sinful flesh is an error. Consider the collection: "sorrow, weariness, hunger and thirst." "Sorrow" is not akin to weariness, hunger or thirst. It's not a physical characteristic. It's akin to things like joy, disappointment, adversity, irritations and such like. These are not things which constitute sinful flesh. They are simply experiences that we go through because sin exists in our world. Her point, in the phrase you quoted, is not "the following is the sum and substance of what constitutes sinful flesh" but "Christ passed through experiences like ours."



It can't be. That doesn't make sense, because:

a)That's not what one thinks of when hearing the expression, "What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." The word "history" does not allow for physical characteristics, but for sinful acts.
b)She said, "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." Therefore, "like every child of Adam" He inherited tendencies to sin. Our fallen natures are not limited to physical characteristics, so neither was His. Otherwise He would not be accepting the results of the working of the great law of heredity "like every child of Adam."



You're correct that she has many quotes which discuss Christ's humiliation in taking our humanity. Because there are many points to consider in the purpose of doing so, in these different quotes she makes different conclusions. The fact that speaks of physical characteristics, such is "vital force," in some quote does not mean that this is what she has in mind in *every* quote. This is the same error in logic I spoke of above in the Brazil example above. It is confusing a statement of existence with one of universality.

Later on the Desire of Ages she writes:



Here she makes a different point. She states the race, in addition to decreasing in physical strength and mental power (physical characteristics) also decreased in moral worth, and that Christ took upon Him the infirmities of "degenerate" humanity. Her point here is that "only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation."

Our degeneracy and degradation include our inherited tendencies to sin.



I agree with the point regarding moral power. However, in accepting "the great law of heredity," Christ was subject to whatever that law entails. "No single principle of human nature will I violate" (Mx 65, 1899). Thus inherited tendencies to sin must be included in Christ's inherited human nature.

Your statement that Christ wasn't born with sinful propensities is misleading, because sinful propensities are not something one is born with.

Examples of her usage of "sinful propensities" follows:

"Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments." (AH 516)

"'If any man thirst,' for restful hope, for deliverance from sinful propensities, Christ says, 'let him come unto Me, and drink.' The only remedy for vice is the grace and power of Christ." (CH 440)

"Many decide to serve themselves and Satan by not making determined efforts to overcome their defects of character. While many are petting sinful propensities, expecting to be overcomers sometime, they are deciding for perdition." (4T 343)

"None can walk this path and carry with them their burdens of pride, self-will, deceit, falsehood, dishonesty, passion, and the carnal lusts. The path is so narrow that these things will have to be left behind by those who walk in it, but the broad road is wide enough for sinners to travel it with all their sinful propensities." (4T 364)

That’s the point. “Sinful” as Ellen White uses it, doesn’t necessarily connote an inclination towards sin (although it may do so), but “selfish” must connote an inclination towards selfishness.


This is exactly what I’m saying. Sorrow, weariness, hunger and thirst are effects of sin (both physical and mental). As I see it, this is what Ellen White classifies as the likeness of sinful flesh.

“Adam had the advantage over Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.” --Ms. 113, 1902, pp. 1, 2 (See DA 117).

Another quote similar in content to the one I posted:

“I will try to answer this important question: As God He could not be tempted: but as a man He could be tempted, and that strongly, and could yield to the temptations. His human nature must pass through the same test and trial Adam and Eve passed through. ... It was human, identical with our own. ... A human body and a human mind were His. He was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. He was subjected to poverty from His first entrance into the world. He was subject to disappointment and trial in His own home, among His own brethren. He was not surrounded, as in the heavenly courts, with pure and lovely characters. He was compassed with difficulties. {3SM 129.3, 4}


For both. Physical weakening entails a weakening of moral power (less power to resist temptation).


I’m not going to discuss this again, but of course this is in complete disagreement with the Baker letter. Besides, tendencies to sin are in our spiritual nature, and Ellen White says clearly that “His [Christ’s] spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin.” {11MR 345.4}


Christ didn’t have a human father.


Are inherited tendencies to sin different from inherited sinful propensities????
As the Baker letter shows, propensities are something one is born with.

The idea that Jesus is spiritually like Adam before the fall and physically like us prevents Him from fulfilling one of the reasons He became a man, namely, to demonstrate how born again sinners can obey the law perfectly. This purposes necessitates sinful flesh nature like we inherit.

One way around this problem is to say when we are born again our sinful nature is renewed, changed, transformed, that it ceases to tempt us from within to be unlike Jesus, that every impulse is in harmony with the will of God like Adam before the fall. If this were true, then born again believers could not be tempted from within; all temptations would originate outside of them. But does reality reflect this model?

Another way of looking at it is to say it is not a sin to be tempted from within, that the temptations that originate within are no more contaminating than the temptations that originate without. Under this model Jesus could possess sinful flesh nature just like falen man, be tempted from wtihin like us, and not suffer corruption or contamination of character.

What makes more sense? Which model is more in line with reality?

His purpose was not that.

"Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that he was a liar, and that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every requirement of God." {16MR 115.2}

The phrase "sinful human nature" includes the idea of having tendencies to sin. If you exclude Ellen White from the conversation (since her meaning is in dispute) I can think of no one, either Adventist or non-Adventist, who, at the time that Ellen White wrote, used the phrase "sinful human nature" to mean something other than the nature that we obtain through heredity that includes tendencies to sin. Can you cite even one example of someone, either Adventist or not, using the phrase "sinful human being" with it not having this meaning?



This is typical usage. "Typical" isn't strong enough. This is the usage of the phrase. "Sinful human nature" = "a nature with tendencies to sin." If you dispute this, I would again ask that you produce some counter-example by anyone, SDA or not, contemporary to Ellen White, who used this term in some other way.



But tendencies to sin, passed on by heredity, are also effects of sin. These would have to be included, or else Christ would not have followed the "great law of heredity."



No, it's not. It's in disagreement with your interpretation of the Baker letter. The interpretation of the Baker letter is disputed. It's a private letter to someone who was teaching something, we know not what. EGW said if we wish to know her position on a subject, we should consult her *published* works. The counsel was given for a good reason. Because we do not know the specifics behind the counsel given in a private letter, we are liable to jump to wrong conclusions.

If it were EGW's purpose to correct the view of Christ's human nature that Jones and Waggoner taught, it's hardly a credible theory that she would do so be remaining silent about it while she preached side by side with Jones and Waggoner, while they preached this subject. She wrote this in 1895, if I recall correctly. This was during a time when Christ's taking our human nature was being preaches as strongly as ever! In fact, she endorsed a sermon by W. W. Prescott, on the theme of Christ's taking our sinful human nature, called "The Word Made Flesh," as I recall, where Prescott made this point over 30 times. She would hardly endorse a specific sermon on this subject, on the one hand, and then write a private letter condemning the very thing she was endorsing.

The big problem I see in the theories of interpretation you are suggesting in regards to Ellen White on this subject is that they simply are not historically credible.



Tendencies to sin are both in our spiritual nature and in our flesh, which is to say that we receive tendencies to sin both genetically and by means of sinning. Christ never sinned, so He never developed any tendencies in this way, but His human nature, as far as the law of heredity is concerned, was "identical to our own."



Yes, but He had a human mother, with a sinful human nature. She was not immaculately conceive. (The quote from Bible Readings for the Home addresses this)



She never speaks of "inherited sinful propensities."



She never uses the phrase "sinful propensities" to mean anything other than propensities developed by sinning. Never. Every example of the phrase "sinful propensities" is as I cited.

There are statements which say that it was.



Of course, Christ's proving that the law can be kept by human beings with fallen natures simultaneously proves that keeping the law for man, as created, was also possible.

If MM does not produce some statement showing that Christ took our fallen nature to show that fallen man can keep the law, I'll produce something when I get home tonight.

Then you should be able to produce at least one EGW statement which says that Christ had propensities, tendencies, or inclinations to sin, or a bent to sin, or anything else in this direction.
Coming back to my original point. One can inherit physical tendencies to sin, like a tendency to drink, or to smoke. But when you speak of a tendency to selfishness, you are automatically referring to the mind. Do you think Christ had selfish tendencies in His mind?
(By the way, in my first post I didn't have the intention of reviving this discussion, but just of having two points clarified. This was one of them. The other was about Christ's temptations.)


Well, sickness is also an effect of sin, but Christ never got sick. Sinful acts are also an effect of sin, but Christ never sinned.


It’s very clear. In fact, I don't see how it can be disputed.


Are you affirming that only acquired tendencies to sin have to do with our spiritual nature?


It takes two sets of chromosomes to form a new human being. During meiosis, the matching chromosomes of father and mother can exchange small parts of themselves (crossover), and thus create new chromosomes that are not inherited solely from either parent.(Wiki) We don't know how sinful tendencies are transmitted, nor how things happened in Christ's case, so this argument of heredity is questionable, in my opinion.


“Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.” {13MR 18.1}

It’s clear to me that “propensities of sin,” “propensities of disobedience” and “evil propensity” are all synonyms here. Are you affirming that “propensities of disobedience,” with which we are born, are different from “sinful propensities”?

Another thing to be pointed out is that she says in this quote that Adam was created "without a taint of sin upon him," but his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But, about Christ, she says that "He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family." {5MR 115.1}


OK, I’ll wait till either of you produces the quotes.

I asked you to cite anyone, other than Ellen White, who used the phrase "sinful human nature" in a way that does not include "tendencies to sin." You haven't done so.

If everybody used the term "sinful human nature" or "sinful flesh" with the meaning that Christ inherited tendencies to sin, it's unreasonable to suppose that Ellen White had her own private dictionary where a phrase that meant one thing to everybody else meant something different to only her (and those smart enough to figure out her secret meaning half a century after she died).



It's difficult for me to answer your question as stated, so I'll answer what you're getting at in another way, and if that's not sufficient, you can revisit this. Christ had to deny Himself, just like we do. Although He developed no sinful tendencies (as He never sinned), He nevertheless took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature, which sinful nature pressed against Him, as it does us, requiring that He deny Himself, just as it requires that we deny ourself, in order to do God's will as opposed to the will of self.

In other words, He had a will, or self, that had to be denied, just as we do. Unlike us, He perfectly denied Himself, so that He could say, "I do always those things which please Him."



He never got selfish either.



Yes, sure. I don't know what this point is.



It's not at all clear. I'm amazed you could say this with a straight face (of course, I can't see your face; maybe you were winking). I can hardly think of anything *more* disputed than the Baker letter.

It would hardly be like Ellen White to address privately such a public issue. That is, if Baker were presenting what Jones and Waggoner were presenting, then it makes no sense that Ellen White would send off a private letter to someone virtually no one knew, rather than address the issue with Jones and Waggoner, whom virtually everybody knew.

This is what I find to be the weakest point in your interpretations. It doesn't take into account the historical reality of the situation.

For example, when the Holy Flesh movement was being confronted, Stephen Haskell wrote the following to Ellen White:



Then, a week later, Haskel wrote an editorial in the Review and Herald, stating:



Haskell was quoting from the Desire of Ages:

Then he commented:

Here we see Haskell quoting from Ellen White, and interpret her meaning, in a public paper, to dispute a teaching that he and Ellen White were working on together to confront. It's inconceivable that Ellen White would allow Haskell to incorrectly quote her, given the circumstances.

In this same time frame, E. J. Waggoner, at the 1901 GC session, at which Ellen White was present, said the following:



So here we see important figures in the SDA church, Haskell and Waggoner, working in concert with Ellen White, to rebut the Holy Flesh teaching. She was a part of this. That she would remain silent, assuming Haskell was incorrect in quoting her, or that Waggoner's argument was unsound, especially assuming she had already written against such ideas (e.g. to Baker), is simply not possible. It doesn't match the historical setting.



What I'm saying is that there are tendencies to sin which are present within our inherited natures. Christ had those. There are tendencies to sin which we develop because we sin. Christ never sinned, so He did not obtain tendencies to sin in this way.



That Christ inherited tendencies to sin was common knowledge, in the SDA church, as the Bible Readings for the Home quote illustrates. Many more examples could be presented. This was even an area for discussion (i.e., it wasn't contentious).



What SDA's believed is that Christ inherited tendencies to sin, just like the rest of us, but that Christ always resisted these tendencies. Again, quoting Haskell:



This is how Ellen White was understood by her contemporaries, who quoted her, with her knowledge, while she was alive and able to correct any errors with her meaning (which she did routinely, but not here).

Regarding the Baker letter, it is clear to me she is saying the same thing that all Adventists said, which is that Christ came with a human nature like ours, but He never sinned in that nature. Again, it's simply not feasible, given the historical context, that she was speaking against the views that Jones and Waggoner presented, men with whom she preached on the same subject, side by side, and whose position on this subject she defended. (e.g. 1888 Mat. 533 par. 6)

Are you sure the phrase "as God created him" means post-fall sinless man? What about all the other statements that plainly Jesus came to show how born again sinners can obey the law perfectly?

If we limit our discussion to the Bible, which is not necessary, it clearly says Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Just exactly what sinful flesh is like is described in the preceding verses. It wars against the Spirit and new man mind within born again believers who are abiding in Jesus. The sin that dwells within them, that is, within their sinful flesh, generates and communicates all manner of unholy thoughts and feelings, which are nothing more than temptations.

They do not become a sin until the moment they are owned and cherished. They do not contaminate or corrupt character. This is the type of sinful flesh nature Jesus inherited at birth. It's tendencies, inclinations, propensities were decidedly sinful, but from the cradle to the cross Jesus resisted them in the same way born again believers must rsist them. It is important not to confuse the inherited propensities of His fallen flesh nature with the cultivated propensities He nurtured and developed from conception and birth.

Rosangela, do you believe our sinful nature is transformed the moment we are born again, that it ceases to war against the Spirit and mind of the new man, that it generates and communicates thoughts and feelings that are in harmony with the will of God?

There are actually quite a lot of statements which make the point that Christ came to show that fallen man could keep the law of God. Happily I've been able to find the specific one I was looking for.

If we assume that Jesus came to share our experience of what it means to be humans, and if we further assume that we indeed have inherited traits of or towards sin, then it follows that Jesus must have had these same inherited traits in order to accomplish His objective of sharing our experience. If He came and became human in a pre-sin condition, then it could only be said that He shares the experience of very, very few humans, perhaps only two.

For this to be otherwise, either of the two premises must be changed so that we conclude that Jesus did NOT come to share our experience of what it means to be human or that there is no such thing as inherited traits of or towards sin.

I agree, Thomas. A famous quote is:



This was written by Gregory of Nazianzus, probably in the latter half of the 4th century.

Here's some more of the quote, which I found interesting.




E. J. Waggoner expressed the thought this way:

And I have asked you to produce at least one EGW statement which says that Christ had propensities, tendencies, or inclinations to sin, or a bent to sin, or anything else in this direction, and you haven’t done so. Of course there are ambiguities in Ellen White’s words, otherwise there would be no reason for this discussion. The question is, What is the best way to reconcile her apparently contradictory statements?
I would say it’s easier to explain “sinful human nature” as parallel to other expressions of hers, like “fallen nature,” “weakness,” “degeneracy,” and “infirmities.”
You must be aware of the book of Henry Melvill of which Ellen White drew upon, and of his view that there are two primary consequences of the fall – innocent infirmities (hunger, pain, weakness, sorrow and death) and sinful propensities – and that Christ took the first but not the second. Curiously, Ellen White often mentions the first in relation to Christ, but never mentions that Christ had sinful propensities.
By the way, selfishness is classified by her as a sinful propensity, and she says that selfishness came to us as an inheritance. Of course, then, you must believe that Christ took our sinful propensities, and that He was born selfish, like the rest of us. As I pointed out, selfishness is related to the mind, and so you must believe that selfishness was present in Christ’s mind.


That Christ took some effects of sin, but not all.


Sure, by all the “Historic” camp. But I see no reasonable argument for what is written there to be disputed. She warned Baker not to set Jesus “before the people as a man with the propensities of sin.” This was in clear contrast to Adam’s posterity, who were “born with inherent propensities of disobedience.” What she meant is crystal clear.


She must have had her reasons. Ellen White seldom corrected theologically prominent ministers.


Both are tendencies, both are sinful. Tendencies to sin are a taint of sin. Ellen White says Christ “was born without a taint of sin.” As Arnold pointed out, we cannot be born having already participated in sin. So what does this refer to, except to tendencies?


Satan declared it before man sinned, and continued to declare it after man sinned, until Christ came to prove him a liar. Christ "proved that humanity and divinity combined can obey every one of God's precepts." {COL 314.4} This was true both before and after the fall.
As the quote I had posted says,

"Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that he was a liar, and that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every requirement of God." {16MR 115.2}

Mike, what I believe is that a new nature is implanted in our hearts – the nature of love with which man was created in the beginning, and that this new nature counterworks the nature of selfishness with which we are born. New principles are implanted and old principles subdued – but all this happens in the realm of the mind.

Thomas, if this was true, Christ needed to have shared also our cultivated tendencies to sin, which are stronger than the inherited tendencies, for sin is reinforced by repetition (you must know by experience the force of a habit).
But the process, or manner, of temptation, is always the same, whether for sinless or for sinful beings. And the way to victory is also the same - whether for sinless or for sinful beings.

We could learn much from the church fathers if we took the time to read their work, the first propably being that none of our difficult questions are new under the sun.

Rosangela, thank you for answering my question. It sounds like you believe we retain our sinful flesh nature after we are born again and Jesus imnplants within us the mind and nature of the new man, that walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man empowers us to use our faculties of mind and body to keep in subjection the clamorings of our fallen flesh nature.

If this is what you are saying, then I have another question for you. If we keep under subjection the clamorings of our fallen flesh nature, if we do not cherish them or act them out, do they contaminate our character in any way? If not, why not?

R: By the way, selfishness is classified by her as a sinful propensity, and she says that selfishness came to us as an inheritance. Of course, then, you must believe that Christ took our sinful propensities, and that He was born selfish, like the rest of us. As I pointed out, selfishness is related to the mind, and so you must believe that selfishness was present in Christ’s mind.

MM: We become aware of our inherited selfish propensities through the faculties of the mind. But being aware of them and being guilty of them is two entirely different realities, right? Isn't it possible that Jesus, like a born again believer, was aware of His inherited propensities without being guilty of them?

I think the following EGW quote that Rosangela posted earlier bears repeating here with some bolded emphasis added:

“Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.” {13MR 18.1}

The above quote clearly states that Christ did NOT have in Him an evil propensity, NOT even for one moment, therefore, we should lay that thought to rest.

I asked first!

I demonstrated how her words were understood by her peers. That's sufficient.

I cited the text from Bible Readings for the Home. I cited Stephen Haskel *quoting from Ellen White* and explaining her meaning as including tendencies to sin. This was in a public paper, whose purpose was to discredit a false teaching, which was predicated on the idea that Christ did not take our fallen human nature with its tendencies to sin.

It's clear that her writings were understood to mean that Christ took our nature with its tendencies to sin. This thought was repeated over and over again. She preached side by side with people her preached it with her standing but a few feet away. She had every opportunity to correct this idea if it was in error.

Certainly she would have corrected Stephen Haskell quoting her own work!



Take a look at how her contemporaries understood her. That's the best way, because she was alive at the time to correct any misunderstandings.



If some other SDA contemporary of hers had this understanding, that would be an argument that what you are suggesting were possible. However, given that they actually understood her meanings according to what I've cited, it's not.



Of course that's not true. I believe the same thing the SDA's of her time believed, and no one believed that. This is a straw man argument. All one needs to do is simply read what our church published and preached, and one can see what our view was. There weren't disagreements; we just had one view. Ellen White did not have her own private view on this question.

It's beyond credibility that Ellen White would remain silent on a vital issue like this while hundreds of sermons were being preached on the subject (many in her hearing), papers being published in our papers, and so forth. She endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh" which made the specific point that Christ took our flesh with its tendencies to sin. She referred to it in terms of "truth unmingled by error."



Here's something from A. T. Jones



Jesus Christ denied Himself. He took our nature, with all of its liabilities, including an inclination to do one's own will instead of the Father's will, but Christ denied Himself, and did always those things which pleased His Father. Christ "pleased not Himself (Romans 15:3)."



Christ took our sinful nature, but never sinned. That's how the SDA's of the 19th century put it.



It should be obvious to you that I'm not in the historic camp. I know many who are not in the historic camp who see things similarly to me.

It's really quite simple. We have much better evidence than the Baker letter which suggests that Ellen White could not have had the views that your interpretation is suggesting, which I've mentioned above.



What I just mentioned is one. Another is that we don't know the circumstances involving Baker, which is why her counsel to consider her published works is good counsel. It's too easy to misunderstand the intent of a private letter.

A third reasonable argument is that it makes no sense that Ellen White would write a private letter to an obscure individual in the light of a what would be a very public problem involving prominent SDA's.

One thing we can know for sure, whatever Baker was presenting it could not have been the same thing that Jones, Waggoner and Prescott were presenting. It had to be some different idea.



Are you saying that Christ was not of Adam's posterity? She did not write, "Because of sin, Adam's posterity, except for Christ, were born with inherent propensities of disobedience." This is just one of the issues related to the Baker letter. Again, we have much better evidence as to what her views on this issue were because we know how her contemporaries understood her.



She could not have remained silent while Haskel publicly quoted her incorrectly in regards to the Holy Flesh issue. That would not have been ethical. She herself wrote:



Your suggestion seems to be that Ellen White would write a private letter to an obscure worker emphasizing how important it was that he state things in a certain way, while ignoring prominent figures in our church who were saying the same thing. That dog won't hunt. Can you imagine Baker reading Haskell's article in the Review and Herald by Haskell, with Haskell saying the same thing he was yet receiving no comment from her? Obviously, it would be far more important to correct people like Haskell, Jones, Waggoner and Prescott, if they were in error, then Baker.

Can you cite some example where Ellen White corrected an obscure person on some issue, but let the exact same issue slide for a more prominent one? This certainly smacks of favoritism, something which Ellen White strove against.



Did she say we are born with a taint of sin?

This whole exercise seems a bit pointless. We know what her views were because we have the testimony of her peers.



I'm not following you. Satan claimed that the sons and daughters of Adam could not keep the law. Christ proved him to be a liar by taking our fallen nature and perfectly keeping the law. That's what the statement I quotes says, doesn't it?

Tom, we have gone through all this before, so I won’t discuss about Prescott, Waggoner and Jones. (Sorry, I know you had a lot of work to gather all those quotes.) So I’ll just comment on a few points.


It’s futile for Jones to declare that Christ didn’t have a sinful mind, because there is no selfishness in our body, just in our mind. Therefore, I see no other conclusion possible according to this view except that selfishness was present in the mind of Christ.


Not just with a taint, she said we are born in sin.


Satan claimed man – both before and after the fall – couldn’t keep the law. But man – whether before or after the fall – can only keep the law if he is in union with divinity, connected to God, a partaker of divine nature. The difference after the fall is that man lost his connection with God, which is only restored at conversion.

Mike,

I don't know if this contaminates my character, but what I do know is that when I become aware of a selfish impulse/attitude/thought, I realize how depraved my heart is, and ask God to change it.

Since I like practical examples, I'll tell you what happened this week. We were at church on Wednesday when, close to the end of the meeting, it suddenly began to rain heavily. Some sisters were there who didn’t have a car. I knew I ought to take them home, but – shame on me - I didn’t feel like going out of my way to take them home. The sin was not in the temptation (the appeal to not go), but in my lack of love, in my selfishness. I see here four options:
1) I could have fallen into the temptation and chosen not to go, and this would have been selfish.
2) I could have chosen to go because I didn’t want others to have a bad impression about me, but I would still go reluctantly and this would still have been selfish.
3) I could have chosen to go out of a sense of Christian duty, and I wouldn’t have acted out my selfishness (but I would still go somewhat reluctantly).
4) I could have chosen to go out of love (if I wasn't selfish - this option is just hypothetical in this specific situation, in my case).

(Someone else took the initiative first and drove them home.)

Now, I don’t think Christ would ever feel reluctant to drive these sisters home, nor that He would do this just out of a sense of Christian duty, but I believe that He would do it out of love for them. So I believe that’s why the devil had to tempt Him with the perversion of good impulses, since he could find no selfish impulses in Christ's heart (mind) to appeal to.

This doesn't make any sense to me. It's futile for Jones to declare that Christ didn't have a sinful mind?! Isn't that what you believe? And the reason why it's futile for Jones to declare that Christ didn't have a sinful mind is because there is no selfishness in our body? This can't possibly be what you meant to say.



The first part of your argument looks to be inaccurately stated, so I can't comment on the conclusion.



We're not discussing Prescott, Waggoner, and Jones (and Haskell), but Ellen White's view. I quoted from them to show how she was understood by her peers. This certainly has far greater weight than any private letter could have.

Ellen White did not exist in a vacuum. It's simply unrealistic to suppose that she could have sat idly by while Haskell quoted from the Desire of Ages and gave to her words a meaning which she had already condemned. It's equally unrealistic to suppose she would say to Baker, "Be exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ" but not give a hoot when (excluding herself) the most prominent representatives of the church presented the same ideas. How would Baker feel to see Haskel *quoting* from Ellen White, and presenting the same views he (Baker) was presenting, without Ellen White calling Haskell to task? Also, how can we imagine that Ellen White would resort to dishonesty in fighting against the Holy Flesh movement?

I should explain this last point. In the Holy Flesh movement, they held that in regards to taking a fallen nature that Christ took a fallen physical and deteriorated human body only.

Haskell wrote to Ellen White the following:



Now there were two way which this false theology could be attacked. One would be the following:

a.The HF people were correct in regards to their assertions regarding Christ's human nature, but not in regards to their conclusion that we need to partake of a special experience to obtain a sinless human nature, as our human nature will only be changed at Christ's Second Coming.

b.The HF people were incorrect in their assertion regarding Christ's human nature, as well as being incorrect in their assertion regarding our needing a special experience to obtain a nature like that of Adam before the fall (in fact, the reason why they were incorrect in their assertion that we needed a nature like that of Adam's before the fall is precisely because Christ took our fallen nature).

They (including Ellen White) chose b. Now how could she choose b, if in reality she believed a? It would be dishonest for her to sit by and listen to Haskell, Waggoner and others denounce teachings of the Holy Flesh as false (i.e., what their teachings in relation to Christ's human nature), when she, in her heart, knew they were true.



I take it by your response here that you are acknowledging that she didn't say that we are born with a taint of sin.

I'm curious, do you believe that Ellen White believed in original sin?



MM said that one of the reasons Christ became a man was to demonstrate that born again sinners can obey the law perfectly. You denied this. This seems curious to me, as she affirmed that we can keep the law so often. Obviously we have to be born again to do so. So how could MM's point be false?

In your first denial of what MM wrote, you produced a statement which said



MM asked you:



(MM actually wrote "post-fall" instead of "pre-fall," but this is an obvious typo, so I corrected it). MM's questions are well taken. There are many, many statements where EGW makes the point that Jesus Christ demonstrated that we, fallen man, can keep the law. That unfallen man could keep the law isn't the issue. Who could imagine that God would so goof up His creation of man that He would create a creature unable to obey Him? How can this make sense? Let's think about this.

God sets down to create man. He's already created millions of worlds, with trillions of beings who are obeying Him. Now He's going to create man. But somehow He goofed, so that this particular creature is unable to obey Him. That's not a credible theory, is it?

Now the question of whether we, in our fallen condition, can keep the law *is* a vital issue. This is very much in doubt, as the sin in our world, and amongst professed Christians, testifies. Is it possible for fallen man to keep the law? That's a valid, interesting question.

Ellen White affirms that Jesus Christ proved that *fallen* man can keep the law. How did He do that? By taking our fallen nature and perfectly obeying the law. She made this argument many times. The quote I cited used Romans 8:3, 4 to make this argument.

A couple of questions come to mind. First of all, you believe that we are born with inherited tendencies to sin, but Christ was not (please correct any misrepresentations of your views). Yet Ellen White affirms that Christ demonstrated that we can perfectly obey God's law. How so? If He had no inherited tendencies to sin, and we do, we could validly claim that He only demonstrated that unfallen human beings (albeit tired, hungry and thirsty ones) with no inherited tendencies to sin could so, but not that humans such as we are could do so. We could use our sinful natures as an excuse, and there would be no response to that, since nothing Christ did (under the idea that Christ did not inherit tendencies to sin) would have proved otherwise.

A second question is in response to this statement by Ellen White:



Isn't the position of those who wrote these letters to her exactly the position that you hold? If not, what else could it have been? If so, why didn't Ellen White simply answer, "correct." Why did she defend the position that she and Jones and Waggoner were presenting, if it were no different than what those questioning her held?

[quote=Rosangela]
But if the initial impulse is nothing more than a temptation why would we need to ask God to change our heart? What does being tempted have to do with it? Jesus was tempted in all points like we are but He never prayed for God to cleanse or change His heart.

The problem isn't an impure or unholy heart; the problem is a fallen flesh nature that continually clamorings for sinful expression. Of course sinful flesh cannot commit a sin, but it certainly can and does beg and bug us to commit sin.

And, the implanted mind of the new man people receive when they experience rebirth does not silence the harassing voice of their fallen flesh nature. True, the new nature Jesus gives them empowers them to cooperate with heavenly agencies to recognize and resist the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated to their conscious new man mind. This is what Jesus demonstrated while here in sinful flesh.

Do you agree?

PS - I appreciate the practical example you shared. I would say your fallen flesh initially tempted you to be selfish and not give the ladies a ride home in the rain. The temptation did not become a sin until you acted on the sinful suggestion your sinful flesh communicated to you. Of course, repentance restores the relationship sin severs.

Amen!

I agree with Rosangela on this one. Our hearts are desperately wicked and deceitful. EGW writes:



I think the idea that Jesus never prayed for a change of heart, so we don't need to either is exceedingly dangerous.

She continues:



More of Christ and less of self. That's what we need.

Continuing:



The closer we come to Christ, the *more* we will recognize our sinfulness, not less. Our repentance will deepen.

This by no means implies that we need to or should sin. But even those closest to God (as EGW specifies) have the experience she lays out.

She describes the following as our prayer:



(all quotes from COL 159)

I love this last part. Makes me think there's hope for even me.

TE: I think the idea that Jesus never prayed for a change of heart, so we don't need to either is exceedingly dangerous.

MM: I agree. But I hope you aren't assuming that what's I said above. The new heart and mind Jesus implants when we are born again it is not desperately wicked and deceitful.

---

TE: More of Christ and less of self. That's what we need.

MM: All of Jesus and none of self - that's what Jesus is offering.

---

TE: The closer we come to Christ, the *more* we will recognize our sinfulness, not less. Our repentance will deepen. This by no means implies that we need to or should sin.

MM: Nor does it imply we are sinning ignorantly. Being aware of our sinfulness is not the same thing as sinning. It simply means we are aware of our sinful potential if we are not abiding in Jesus. People who are abiding in Jesus do not and cannot commit a known sin.

---

TE: "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self."

MM: This isn't saying we are sinning. It isn't saying save me with my sins. Immediately preceding this sentence she says, "Lord, take my heart; for I cannot give it. It is Thy property. Keep it pure, for I cannot keep it for Thee." God takes our heart and gives us a pure and holy heart in return. It is not an unchristlike, unholy heart.

Unfortunately, this sounds like a reiteration of the exceedingly dangerous idea.



This is just saying what I said.



She points out that at every step our repentance deepens, and that our renunciation of self deepens. The "save my from my unchristlike self" is speaking of the born-again believer! The closer we come to Chris, the more we recognize our sinfulness and our need for Him, not the less.



This experience is the experience of the born-again believer. "It is not only at the beginning of the Christian life that this renunciation of self is to be made."

Tom, where are your powers of deduction?
What I mean is, since he believes Christ took a selfish human nature, and this couldn’t mean He took a selfish human body, but could only mean a selfish human mind, how can he say Christ didn’t have a sinful mind?


Again, she must have had her reasons. Why did she write personal testimonies to some and not to others? Why did she sometimes correct those who presented views in disagreement with hers and sometimes she didn’t? We don’t know, so why speculate?


But in fact a is wrong. “He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden.” This obviously refers also to the body Christ took. They believed it was a special body, like that of Adam, and that after they had passed through “the garden experience” their body would become special, too. They even spoke about the elimination of gray hair and of the possibility of death after this experience.


No, she doesn’t say it, but if everybody was born without the taint of sin, why would she mention this about Christ? It would be a strange remark, like saying that Christ was born with two hands. Anyway, what would this mean? That Christ was born without having already sinned? How can someone be born having already sinned?


I think I should ask you this question. If you don’t believe someone can be born having already sinned, you must believe that the quote in question refers to the imputation of the sin of Adam.


The context is sufficient to establish that she refers to pre-fall sinless man in this quote:

“In heaven Satan had declared that the sin of Adam revealed that human beings could not keep the law of God, and he sought to carry the universe with him in this belief. Satan's words appeared to be true, but Christ came to unmask the deceiver. ... Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that he was a liar, and that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every requirement of God.” {16MR 115.1, 2}

It’s true that he also said this in relation to man after the fall, but because he claimed the whole race was under his control:

“The world's Redeemer passed over the ground where Adam fell because of his disobeying the expressed law of Jehovah; and the only begotten Son of God came to our world as a man, to reveal to the world that men could keep the law of God. Satan, the fallen angel, had declared that no man could keep the law of God after the disobedience of Adam. He claimed the whole race under his control.” {5MR 112.1}


Yes, sorry, I stand corrected.


But this is not a valid excuse, because Ellen White doesn’t seem to see any difference in this respect between pre-fall man and humans such as we are.

“Ministers of our time give from their pulpits license to sin, in saying to the sinner, that the law of God is not binding upon man, and that it is impossible for him to keep it. It was then impossible for Adam to keep God's law, and why should the punishment of transgression have fallen upon him?” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 16}

Notice that her argument is that if it’s impossible for us to obey the law, it was also impossible for Adam to do so. Of course this argument doesn’t make sense under your view.


What many evangelicals hold, that is, that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation (see DA 117 – I’ll not quote it for this post is already too long).

Tom, are you implying that after we pray for a new heart and mind that the one Jesus gives us when we experience rebirth is also desperately wicked and deceitful?


Do you agree it isn't saying Jesus saves us with our sins? Or, do you think it says Jesus saves us with our sins?


Yes, of course. But you seem to be implying this particular insight means born again believers continually discover hitherto unknown sinful behaviors, sinful habits the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to them until after they are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify them. This is what I'm disagreeing with.


Renunciating self is simply another way of saying we must keep the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh nature under the control of a sanctified will and mind. Jesus demonstrated how to subdue these types of inherited besetting sins. It in no way means the Holy Spirit keeps us in darkness and ignorance regarding certain sinful behaviors until the day He thinks we are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify them.

Jesus didn't demonstrate how unconverted sinners can obey the law. Instead, He demonstrated how born again believers can obey the law. There is a huge difference between sinners before and after rebirth. Jesus began life as a human in the same state born again believers begin their new life of partaking of the divine nature, walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man. He was born, as it were, born again. We begin at rebirth where He began at birth.

Jones didn't say anything about Christ taking a selfish human nature, did he? What Jones meant, and what he said, was that Christ took our human natures, with its inherited tendencies to sin. He expressed the same idea Haskell did, in commenting on the Desire of Ages passage he (Haskell) quoted:





There's no possible reason which would explain this behavior. This is why your suggested interpretation is not viable.

In regards to your questions as to why she wrote private testimonies to some and not to others, this is an apples to oranges comparison. She didn't treat important issues of doctrine this way. Every doctrinal issue was treated publicly, as it should be. Can you give even one example of an important doctrinal issue being treated by her writing a private letter? The suggestion doesn't even make sense. How would anyone know about? She would have to speak of it publicly, which is, indeed, what she did.



Not the salient point. If you look at how Haskell and Waggoner addressed the Holy Flesh movement fallacy, they argued against the idea that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall as having to do with our inherited tendencies to sin, not with having to do with grey hair. Again, we see Haskel *quoting* Ellen White, explaining her meaning to be that Christ took our fallen nature with its inherited tendencies to sin.



This is just another example of why it's such a poor idea to try to form doctrine out of a private letter! We don't know what Baker was teaching, so the question as to why Ellen White wrote the things she did to Baker is difficult to answer. However, she used the expression "taint of sin" many times, for example:





We see from this that she used the phrase to indicate actually sinning, not as having to do with our biological human nature. Perhaps her point may have been that taking our human nature does not result in one's having a taint of sin. In this way, she could emphasize that Christ was born into the human family like the rest of us, taking our natures, but still not have a taint of sin. Perhaps Baker was teaching that Christ had a taint of sin.



Ok, it's fine for you to ask me the question, but it would be nice if you would answer mine. I don't really follow what you're asking me, but in regards to the question I asked, no, I don't believe in original sin.

Regarding Satan's accusations that man could not keep the law, it simply makes no sense to interpret this as applying to man in his pre-fallen condition. Who would think that God could be so incompetent as to create a being who could not obey Him?



Of course she saw the difference. In the temptations in the wilderness, she emphasized that it was not as Adam stood in his innocence that Christ came, but after 4,000 years of sin. She wouldn't have emphasized this point if it made no difference.

That Adam, as he was created, could keep the law was never an issue. Who could suppose God to be so incompetent as to not be able to create a being that could obey Him? The issue was always whether we, fallen man, could keep the law. She was dealing with excuses that people make that the law cannot be kept, and showing why these arguments were false.



This isn't a question of human nature. Adam, before the fall, with an unfallen nature, could be (and was) overcome by temptation. Her comments had to do with Christ's human nature, so my question still stands. The position of those questioning her would have been the same as yours. If EGW's position were the same as yours, and different from Jones and Waggoner's, her response makes no sense.

The issue of which human nature Christ took is a very simple one. It can seem to be complicated with questions in regards to "propensities" and "taint" and other words and phrases EGW used, but the simple question comes down to one question:

Did the human nature Christ assumed have inherited tendencies to sin?

That SDA's during Christ's lifetime believed this is clear. Laying aside EGW for the moment (since her statements are what is under dispute) there is not one example of the idea that Christ's nature did not have inherited tendencies to sin present in any Adventist publication until 30 years after Ellen White died. One would have to believe that Ellen White secretly held the opposite view of every other church member, and kept this secret to her grace, except for Baker.

That SDA's believed Ellen White's position was that Christ assumed our fallen nature with its inherited tendencies is clear as well:



Everybody believes that Christ's human nature was one subject to hunger, thirst, weariness, and such like. The phrase "sinful human nature" as applied to Christ means one thing, and one thing only: inherited tendencies to sin.

This usage is not unique to SDA's. The phrase has always meant the same to SDA's or not SDA's.

Ellen White wrote:



The term "sinful nature" was (and is) universally understood to mean a nature with tendencies to sin. If what Ellen White had believed was that Christ took a human nature which had the ability to be hungry, thirsty, and tired, she would have written that Christ took a sinless human nature, just like others who have written on Christology have done.

In order to take the position that Ellen White really meant that Christ took a sinless human nature when she said that He took our sinful human nature, one would have to believe that:

a.She coined a completely new usage of the term "sinful nature"

AND

b.She never corrected anyone (except Baker, in a private letter) who misunderstood her meaning as being the same as that which every other person who had used the phrase had in mind.

MM, I agree with Rosangela's response to you.



I believe this is the proper response of a Christian. I believe this is in harmony with the quotes I presented to you from COL.

Ellen White is not saying that we need to continue to sin in COL, but that as we come closer to Christ, our renunciation of self will deepen. She said:



This is the prayer of the Christian, and the closer one comes to Christ, the more deeply felt is this prayer.

One needn't be sinning to repent. This is made clear by her statement:





There's nothing I wrote which implies this.

I'd like to take a stab at this.

First, never present Christ as one altogether such an one as we are, for it cannot be. But if He's not exactly as we are, is His life of perfect obedience under every point of temptation a valid example for us? Yes, because His temptations were 100 times stronger than ours.

However, a bit of analysis shows that His inherited tendencies to sin could account for no more than 1% of the total. (see primary source of Christ's temptations) So we can accept His example of overcoming temptation under all circumstances, since His circumstances were much worse than ours, even though they were not identical to ours.

You're assuming your conclusion. You assert that Christ's temptations were 100 times stronger than ours, but how do you even known that it's possible for the temptations of one with an unfallen nature to be even as strong as ours, let alone stronger? If it's not possible for the temptations of an unfallen nature to be as strong as ours, then the fact that Christ's temptations were stronger is simply evidence that He took our nature.

Ellen White writes that Christ silenced Satan's accusations by taking our fallen nature. That makes perfect sense. But how could Christ demonstrate that a fallen human being could overcome by taking the nature of an unfallen being?

E. J. Waggoner writes:



This logic makes sense.

That's not MY assertion.

The logic is incomplete.

Jesus came to redeem corrupt man, rebellious man, evil man. If Waggoner's logic is correct, then Jesus had to be corrupt, rebellious, and evil. But we know that's not the case. The failure is in the unspoken premise that Jesus had to be like what He came to redeem.

Along those lines is the error that what Jesus did not assume, He did not heal. Therefore, Gregory N. was also wrong.

The doctor does not have to be sick, the teacher does not have to be ignorant. Those trapped in quicksand cannot be saved by one who is also in the quicksand.

How do you know that it's not possible?

Did you read the thread I linked to? I know I skipped a bunch of steps, but do you see how Christ's internal temptations could account for no more than 1% of His total temptations?

I looked at it, and it seems to have the flaw I pointed out. You're assuming it's possible that He could have had temptations as strong as ours even though He didn't take a nature like ours. How do you know that's possible?

I'll comment further on a couple of your assertions:



Ellen White points out that what made Christ's temptations in the wilderness so difficult to bear was the fact that He bore our sins. His bearing these sins were not like His carrying them in a backpack, so that they had not impact on Him. She points out that Satan's temptations to Christ were enticing to Him. How could that be? To a sinless being, with a sinless nature, how could anything Satan presented to Christ that appealed to self have any appeal whatsoever? It would have been Satan tempting us to eat dung. We would smell it, bolt in horror, and say, "No thanks."

But Christ took our sinful nature, and bore our sins, and that combination made His experience like ours, not unlike ours. Because of His greater character, and never having sinned, He was able to bear temptation to a far greater degree than we can, but what made the temptations difficult for Him are the same things that make it difficult for us; the clamoring of our sinful nature, and the impact of sin (in His case, of course, that sin being ours which He bore, rather than His own, since He had none).



Jesus Christ was not an amalgamation, half human and half Holy Spirit. Assuming the Holy Spirit contributed chromosomes to Christ, what would they have been to? Clearly, that of a human being who lived in 0 B.C. (or 4 B.C.).

As Prescott asked in his sermon, "The Word Made Flesh" (which Ellen White endorsed in the strongest terms, calling it something like "truth unmingled with error") "What flesh could Christ have taken but the flesh which existed at the time?"

The onus is on you to prove your assertion, Arnold.

You're suggesting a scenario which looks to be historically impossible.

1.Ellen White used the phrases "sinful nature," "fallen nature," "nature degraded and defiled by sin," "nature of Adam the transgressor." These terms were used by everyone, SDA's and non-SDA's alike, to indicate a nature with inherited tendencies to sin. Can you cite even one person, contemporary to Ellen White, either SDA or not, who used these expressions in a way that did not mean that Christ took a human nature with tendencies to sin?

2.Ellen White's writings were understood by her contemporaries as meaning that Christ took a human nature with tendencies to sin. For example:



Hence Ellen White used expressions that were universally understood to mean "a nature with tendencies to sin" and was understood by her contemporaries in this way, and *Ellen White understood this was the case*.

She would have corrected someone who was misquoting her on a vital issue like this, especially when the whole purpose of Haskell's arguments were to disprove the teaching of the Holy Flesh. It would hardly have been ethical for Ellen White to stand by mute while Haskell, working in concert with her against the Holy Flesh teachings, misquoted her writings to express a teaching from The Desire of Ages to counter the Holy Flesh movement which in reality agreed with what the Holy Flesh movement was suggesting.

3.Ellen White specifically endorsed messages which taught that Christ took our fallen nature, with its tendencies to sin. For example, she endorsed the sermon "The Word Made Flesh" by W. W. Prescott, whose theme was that Christ took sinful flesh. "Flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, but flesh in which he did not sin." (from memory).

Prescott asked "What flesh could he have taken, but the flesh of the time?" He used the expressions "sinful flesh" and "flesh of sin" in relation to Christ dozens of times in this sermon. That Christ had flesh exactly like ours was the point of his sermon.

4.The existence of the Baker letter actually makes it *less* likely that Ellen White's Christology was different than that of Haskell, Prescott, Jones or Waggoner. Why? Because this letter indicates that Christology was an important issue to her, and that she would correct aberrant views where they existed.

Yet far from correcting Prescott, Haskell, Jones or Waggoner's Christology, she endorsed it!

Tom, are you implying that after we pray for a new heart and mind that the one Jesus gives us when we experience rebirth is also desperately wicked and deceitful?


Renunciating self is simply another way of saying we must keep the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh nature under the control of a sanctified will and mind.

Jesus demonstrated how to subdue these types of inherited besetting sins. It in no way means the Holy Spirit keeps us in darkness and ignorance regarding certain sinful behaviors until the day He thinks we are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify them.

Jesus didn't demonstrate how unconverted sinners can obey the law. Instead, He demonstrated how born again believers can obey the law. There is a huge difference between sinners before and after rebirth.

Jesus began life as a human in the same state born again believers begin their new life of partaking of the divine nature, walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man. He was born, as it were, born again. We begin at rebirth where He began at birth.

Jesus' inherited tendencies, inclinations, propensities warred against Him in the exact same way they war against born again believers. Nevertheless, there was not one sinful propensity in Him that He cherished or craved. Jesus was repulsed by the sinful suggestions and clamorings that tempted Him from within.

A new heart and mind refers to the process of conversion. Do you agree?

Our heart refers to our innermost desires. Upon being converted, our desires become to live in harmony with God, and with the principles by which He runs His government. At the same time, we still have much to learn and unlearn. Millions of selfish decisions we have made in our lifetimes have an impact on us, and we need to be healed from these things. This healing doesn't happen in an instant.



That's not the focus of the COL quote. She writes that we should pray:



Is this your prayer, MM?

She writes:





Agreed (although, not the focus of the COL quotes).



You have a remarkable gift for twisting one's meanings into something else.

Read my argument again. The argument does not rest on His nature, whether fallen or unfallen. There are only 3 premises:

• Jesus' temptations were 100 times stronger than any of us will ever face.
• Jesus' hereditary tendencies to wrong were not the worst in history.
• Jesus' cultivated tendencies to wrong were nonexistent.

If these three are correct, I can prove with mathematical certainty that Jesus' external temptations were 99 times stronger than His internal ones. Do you agree, at least, that the logic is valid, i.e., assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true?

Of these three premises, your only beef is with the strength of His cultivated tendencies, which you believe came from the sins of humanity. I'll address that next time.

You said this, in your post # 98158. I used your terminology. Do you hold the same view as Jones or a different view?
The point is, Ellen White says we received selfishness as an inheritance. Besides, selfishness is the essence of sin, so a sinful human nature is a selfish human nature. Now, this selfishness can’t refer to the body, but just to the mind. How can selfishness be excluded from the mind of a Christ who took a sinful (selfish) nature?


I can give several examples of people who held doctrinal errors which she didn’t correct through a private message. After she wrote The Desire of Ages semi-arian views continued to be presented in our periodicals and books and she didn’t correct the authors. Uriah Smith held wrong prophetic views in his book and she recommended it, instead of pointing out its errors. In 1888 she wrote she disagreed with some points Waggoner had presented, but never wrote him, nor did she mention which these points were.


This is not true. The body-related aspect seemed to be one of the most prominent aspects of the movement and they addressed it.
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/g...hapter15023.htm

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/g...hapter13927.htm

It’s interesting that through the above links we can see that Ellen White addressed the noise and confusion which characterized the meetings. She also addressed fables such as that the blind, the deaf, the lame, the deformed, will not receive the seal of God and that we are to pray that colored hair or gray hair shall become black. She also addressed the possibility of obtaining holy flesh in this world, saying that it would lead to the claim that those who possessed it could not sin, and saying that we will always have to fight tendencies to wrong. But, interestingly, she didn’t address the issue of Christ’s nature.


She didn’t write this to Baker, but to "My Brethren in North Fitzroy" (November 18, 1898), and she doesn’t seem to be correcting them, but just making a doctrinal remark.


No, I don’t believe Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity, but I do believe God condemns the sinful nature with which we are born. That’s why babies need a Savior.


I provided the context of the quote. How can you contest what is clear?
Besides, Satan had declared in the opening of the great controversy that it was impossible to obey the law, even for angels – this was his excuse for transgressing it. Thus, evidently his logic is different from yours.


Your point had been that, if Christ did not have tendencies to sin, we could claim that He didn’t demonstrate that it’s possible for us to obey the law and use this as an excuse. This is not true because, although circumstances make it less difficult or more difficult to obey under temptation, the strength of the temptation is not only determined by the weakness of one’s resistance, but also by Satan’s deceptive power.


No, for it’s evident that the subject is the same. Compare the quotes:

Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature. (1888 Mat. 533)

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. {DA 117.2}

In the quote you posted, notice that Ellen White is by no means analyzing if Christ’s nature was fallen or unfallen, but the fact that He took “man’s nature,” otherwise “He could not have been tempted as man has been.” As far as I know, man could be tempted both before and after his fall, so she is here speaking of the human condition, not of a pre-fall or post-fall condition.

Right, I said this. I said, "I suppose one could say ..."



AFAIK, my view is the same, but the comment was mine, so I wouldn't want to ascribe it to someone else.



Christ took our nature, along with "all its hereditary inclinations," which includes inclinations to being selfish. However, Christ, unlike ourselves, perfectly denied Himself. He "please not Himself" (Rom. 15:3).



That's not what's needed. What's needed is an important doctrinal error which she corrected privately but not publicly.



There was never any controversy regarding Christ's human nature, though. We only had one view. If some one given person were out of step, there would be no reason for her not to correct him or her, as she demonstrated with Baker. (i.e., she would have to treat the situation as delicately as she would the Arian question).



That was a whole book, though. If Uriah Smith had presented an article in the Review and Herald, about some specific thing, like Turkey and the King of the North, and EGW endorsed that, one could certainly validly conclude that she was endorsing Uriah Smith's view on that particular thing, given that this this was the subject and focal point of the article. In the case of W. W. Prescott's sermon, the sermon was entitled "The Word Made Flesh," and the them was that Christ took our flesh, exactly the same as ours, and he repeated that point to make sure his hearers got it, over and over again, over 30 times.



She allowed for the possibility that she was in error. She was trying to promote a spirit of investigation amongst those who were opposing Waggoner.



That's a 10 page article. It would be kind if you would quote the specific point you were wishing to make. I did a search on "Waggoner" and found nothing, so I can't see how your assertion can possibly be true in regards to him, since he is apparently not even referenced by the article.

I did see that Haskell was involved, and saw that Ellen White was asked certain questions, like this one:



It makes sense that they would ask this question, since they believed that Christ took Adam's nature before the fall, instead of after the fall, like SDA's at the time believed. Haskell wrote:



which is the point I was making.

Haskell also commented:



which is very interesting, since the same thing happens today.

Regarding Waggoner, can you produce any statement of his where he deals with the "prominent" aspects of the Holy Flesh movement, that is, involving the body, because I am aware of no such statement, and the articles you referenced didn't have any.

At any rate, Haskell quoted Ellen White in the Desire of Ages, and commented that Christ took our nature, with all its inherited inclinations, and this was to disprove the view of the Holy Flesh people. Whether they included grey hair or whatever in their view is a moot point, in regards to the point I was making, which is that Ellen White was understood by her contemporaries as believing, and teaching, that Christ took our fallen nature, with all its inherited inclinations.

The links were interesting.



So if God did not condemn our sinful natures, babies wouldn't need a Savior? It's too bad that God does that then.



Because what you are suggesting makes no sense. God could not create a being capable of creating Him? Who would believe that?



I think Satan's purpose was to misrepresent God's character by deception, by representing God as being as he (Satan) was, and by so doing to deceive angels and men, so that they would pay homage to himself (Satan). Satan represents the law as unjust, and tries to lead people into disobedience. The reason for his trying to show the law is unjust is to try to show that God is unjust.

Nobody has any doubt that the law can be kept by unfallen beings. Millions of worlds, and billions of angels have been keeping the law for eons.



I'm very careful not to say that Christ had tendencies to sin. EGW counsels us to be careful in how we discuss these things, and I believe that counsel is well-founded. Christ took our fallen nature, with its tendencies to sins. The problem with saying that "Christ had tendencies to sin" is that this can be misconstrued to mean that Christ sinned, and I want to be very careful not to give that impression.



Your logic here doesn't follow. I am arguing that one cannot argue A because of B. You are saying my argument isn't true because what makes A hard to do is also C. So what? The fact that C also makes A hard, doesn't imply that B doesn't.

IOW, you are saying that my point that one could argue that Christ did not demonstrate that one with a fallen human nature could keep the law if Christ did not take a fallen human nature is not true because in addition the difficulty of one's temptation being affected by "the weakness of one’s resistance" it's also affected by "Satan’s deceptive power." This has no logical impact on my argument. It could "also" be affected by 1,000 other things, and the point I made would still be valid.

Not only is the point valid, but it's one that Adventists commonly made.



This is just a minor point, but sometimes I miss a bit of the context of our conversation, so I have to go back and hunt to see what it is. I may do the same thing to you as well, but I try to include enough of the context of our conversation so you can answer just by looking at what I provided.

Here's a bit more of the context:



Ellen White wrote that letters had been coming to her questioning how Christ could have taken our nature. She responded:



She is explaining two things here:

1.That Christ took our nature.
2.Why that is important.

We know what Jones and Waggoner preached! They preached that Christ took our fallen nature. That was an essential part of their message on righteousness by faith. People had questions regarding this. So Ellen White responce explains why it was important that Christ took our nature.

I don't see how your explanation makes no sense on the face of it, because she writes, "Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man...." This has to mean that man took fallen nature because:

1.That's what Jones and Waggoner preached, and this was a point many had questions about.
2.Nobody questions that Christ was a man.

IOW, when the statement is made, "Christ could not have had man's nature, because then He would have fallen to temptation," this has to be understood as "Christ could not have had man's fallen nature, because then He would have fallen to temptation," because this is the question that people really have! I've never met anyone who questions that Christ was a man. (i.e. took man's nature, as in man vs. something different than man) However, many question that He took our fallen nature.

One needs to keep in mind the context of her statement, which is that she was preaching side by side with Jones and Waggoner.

Please do so. Prove it mathematically.



Your argument seems to make no allowance for the fact that Christ bore our sins as He was being tempted. His bearing our sins accounts for our cultivated tendencies to evil. He bore *all* of our tendencies to evil, which is what made His temptations so difficult. We only have the cultivated tendencies or ourselves to worry about. That, in combination with the fact that He did this while taking our sinful nature. It was that combination that made His temptations immeasurably stronger than our own (The 100 shouldn't be taken literally; I'm sure His temptations were more than 100 times more difficult than ours).



I think the first one is understated.

I'm not sure about the second one. Is there some statement which says that Christ's hereditary tendencies were less than ours? If you include as "hereditary tendencies" non-genetic factors, such as the mother using drugs, I would agree.

You mentioned the third, so I'll bait my breath and await your comment.

You can take the hook out now.

Let JIH = Jesus' Internal temptations by Heredity
Let JIC = Jesus' Internal temptations by Cultivation
Let JE = Jesus' External temptations
Let WIH = Worst person's Internal temptations by Heredity
Let WIC = Worst person's Internal temptations by Cultivation
Let WE = Worst person's External temptations

Jesus' total temptations = 100 * Worst person's total temptations
JIH + JIC + JE = 100(WIH + WIC + WE)

JIC = 0 (because He did not cultivate any sins)
JIH + JE = 100(WIH + WIC + WE)

Given: WIH > JIH, and both are non-negative
WIH + JE > 100(WIH + WIC + WE)

after some combining of terms
JE > 99WIH + 100WIC + 100WE

because WIC and WE are both non-negative, we can simplify
JE > 99WIH

because WIH > JIH, we can substitute
JE > 99JIH

There, Jesus' external temptations were more than 99 times His internal hereditary temptations. From here, it is trivial to show that His internal hereditary temptations were less than 1% of His external temptations.

If we want, we can show that JIH is significantly less than 1% of His total temptations. First, 100WIC + 100WE, which we removed for simplicity of the proof, is much bigger than 0, and very likely to be much bigger than 99JIH. Second, you are correct that the temptations Christ faced were more than 100 times what we face -> the ratio JE/JIH gets bigger. (It is left as an exercise to the reader to prove that, if necessary.)

There is allowance for imputed sins and tendencies, but it would be counted as coming from an external source, since such tendencies cannot be attributed to "the great law of heredity" or to personal cultivation of sin.


There's a SOP quote that says His temptations were more than 100 times greater than ours.

However, what you just wrote makes my argument stronger. If the strength of His temptations are to be attributed to His taking our sins, then it cannot be attributed to His taking humanity after 4000 years of degradation. My humanity has 6000 years of degradation, but I only deal with my own sins. Therefore, His example of overcoming temptations is not founded on "the great law of heredity," regardless of how often postlapsarians invoke it.

Furthermore, the example that is paramount is not in how strong His temptations were (which none of us will ever face), but in how strong His power is (which all of us have within our reach). If we would submit to God as He did, then we can have the power that He did, and walk as He walked. No matter how fallen our flesh may be, His grace is sufficient.

That quote says IT ALL, Daryl....

If people just believed that statement....most of this discussion wouldn't even be taking place....

Arthur, regarding post #98485, very cool!

What I'm suggesting is that our fallen nature served as a catalyst. That the imputed sins and tendencies are much greater in effect, in terms of making the temptations so much stronger than ours, seems possible, because Christ took the sins and tendencies of billions of people upon Him, but He only assumed one fallen nature. But without assuming that fallen nature, the impact of those imputed sins and tendencies would have been lacking.

For example, when Satan presented to Christ the kingdoms of this world as a prize, Christ turned away, rather than gaze upon them. Why? Because having these kingdoms was something pleasant for Him to gaze upon, and doing so would have been dangerous; He could have fallen into temptation. But what interest would such kingdoms have for a being who did not take a fallen nature?

Again, the big problem I see with the position being suggested that Christ took a nature without inherited tendencies to sin is the historical one.

1.Every contemporary of Ellen White who spoke of Christ's having taken a sinful human nature did so with the meaning that Christ's nature had (by way of inheritance) tendencies or inclinations to sin. One would have to postulate that Ellen White used the term "sinful nature" to mean:
a.Something different than it meant to any other human
b.The same thing as what everybody else meant by the term "sinless nature"

2.One would have to postulate that Ellen White thought it was very important to write an unpublished letter to an obscure individual in Australia to correct a point of doctrine, but not important enough to inform people with whom she was preaching side by side, that were making presentations at the General Conference session, that were writing articles in the church's papers, and publishing books purporting to present what SDA's believe.

3.One would have to postulate that Ellen White would be able to endorse a sermon with statements such as "truth was separated from error," "Prescott has spoken ... at the Armendale campmeeting under inspiration of the Holy Spirit" "The inspiration of the Holy Spirit is upon him. Prescott has never had such power in preaching the truth" in regards to a sermon that was discussing that Christ took our fallen nature! The title of the sermon was "The Word Became Flesh" and the theme was that Christ took our fallen nature.

These are just a few of the historical problems. I've spoken of others elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here.

I see often repeated this same error of attempting to interpret inspired words (the same thing is done with Scripture; in particular, interpretations are often suggested of Paul's writings which would have been impossible, given the historical context) as if one could just parse words with no thought whatsoever given to the historical realities of the situation. Ellen White did not write in a vacuum.

It is clear that Ellen White's contemporaries believed that she taught that Christ took a nature which had hereditary inclinations to sin, and that she knew this to be the case. It defies credulity that she would have taken no steps to correct this misconception of her teachings on this point, had her colleagues been misinterpreting her position.

The problem, Tammy, is that the interpretation that is suggested of this unpublished letter does not agree with the historical realities of the situation. What you are suggesting would involve giving greater weight to an unpublished letter than to the book "The Desire of Ages."

For example, Stephen Haskell, in quoted from the Desire of Ages:



So we see that the "Desire of Ages", in the eyes of those who worked side by side with Ellen White in combating errors of Christology, teaches that Christ took a "fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations," which is in contrast to how the Baker letter has been interpreted by some.

The new mind and heart is what Jesus implants within people when they complete the process of rebirth. It is during the process of converting from worldliness to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded that the Holy Spirit reveals their sinful habits and practices in light of the cross.

After they have confronted, confessed, and crucified everything that stands in the way of them experiencing the miracle of rebirth - self dies and they are rise to newness of life. The question is, therefore, which sinful habits and practices must be crucified before they can experience rebirth, before they can receive the implanted mind and heart of the new man?

You seem to think there are all kinds of sinful habits and practices that the Holy Spirit does not reveal before they experience the miracle of rebirth. You seem to be saying that the Holy Spirit waits until after they are born again to reveal the rest of their sinful habits and practices, that He is too kind and merciful to reveal certain sins because they are unwilling and able to confront them, to confess them, and to crucify them.

When I ask for examples of sinful habits and practices the Holy Spirit waits to reveal until after they are born again you list things like - saying "gee", being impatient, being proud, nursing old wounds, breaking the Sabbath, and believing things about God that are untrue. Given the types of things you list, I am led to ask, What did He reveal to them?


What does this mean to you, Tom? You seem to disagree with what I think it means. Does it mean we regularly become aware of new, hitherto unknown sinful habits and practices that must be confessed and crucified?


Did Jesus have to regularly renounce inherent selfishness?


And you have a knack for ignoring comments and questions. Plus, you often assume things about me that are wrong and unkind. Please, Tom, simply address the issue and avoid the unsavory insults. Thank you.

Pre-fall man was not tempted from within like post-fall man is tempted from within. The origin of internally generated temptations is fallen flesh nature. Satan could be dead and gone and they would still be tempted from within. All external forms of temptation could cease to exist and they would still be tempted from within. This is the main difference between pre-fall and post-fall man.

Jesus was tempted in all points like post-fall man is tempted. This must necessarily include internally generated temptations. It cannot only apply to eternally generated temptations. The reason Jesus was able to be tempted in all points like we are tempted is due to the fact He possessed sinful flesh nature the same as we do. He took both form and nature of fallen man. He realized the strength of perverted appetites and passions. He assumed sinful human nature's temptations - our internal foes, the sins that clamor for mastery.

"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan's temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted. {4aSG 115.3}

"He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and unholy passion which controlled the world and had brought upon man inexpressible suffering. {Con 36.2}

"He assumed human nature, with its infirmities, its liabilities, its temptations. (3SM 132)

1.MM, what you are describing in regards to being born again doesn't fit with reality. I was born again when I was 15, and even thought it's been many years, I remember the experience well. A girl presented the Gospel to me, I recognized that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I was convinced these things were true, and realized I had a decision to make. Would I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior or not? Thankfully, I decided in favor.

There was a complete change me, there's no doubt about that. My friends and family couldn't help but notice it. I was interested in reading Scripture, fellowshipping with other Christians, and discovering all I could about Christ.

However, there was none of the long, drawn out process you seem to be describing. I was aware that I was a sinner, and I needed Christ. That was enough. *After* being born again, the Holy Spirit started revealing things to me in regards to my character. There was much that needed changing (and still, believe it or not, I'm still not perfect).

I see nothing in my experience, or the experience of anybody I know, or have read about, that corresponds to what you are suggesting. When I read what others have written about justification by faith, like Waggoner, or Wesley, or Luther, I see that their descriptions match mine.

Ellen White endorsed the teachings of these great men, and I see her writings in regards to justification by faith to be in harmony with theirs.

I see the experience of the publican to be straightforward and easy to understand:





He revealed that they were sinners and needed Christ.



She speaks of our confessing like this: "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self." You have suggested that this means that we keep our bodies under subjection, something like that. I think what she means by saying that we should pray "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self." is that we should pray, "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self."

I have no trouble praying this prayer. It expresses the desire of my heart. As EGW describes, if I am saved at last, I have no doubt that it will be due entirely to God's grace, and in spite of my wicked, unChristlike self.

Can you pray the prayer she suggests? If not, this highlights our differences. If so, we may be able to come into harmony on some things.



If I can phrase the question this way, "Did Jesus have to regularly renounce selfishness?" the answer is "yes," because He assumed our nature and assumed our sins. If by "inherent" you have in mind Christ's sinless nature, the answer is no. If you have in mind Christ's sinful nature, and the sins He assumed in that nature, the answer is yes.

A difficulty I see in the position you are suggesting is that it appears to me that you believe that the more we become like Christ, the less our experience resembles His in regards to repentance. That is, as EGW states things, the closer we come to Christ, the *more* we will repent. However, as you see Christ's experience (please correct any errors here of my characterization of your position), Christ did not repent at all. So as we become more like Him, our experience, in regards to repentance, becomes less and less like His.



You write, "you often assume things about me that are wrong and unkind." Like what? Please don't answer this publicly, but send me a private message. If I've treated you unfairly or unkindly, please let me know how, so I can make amends.

MM, I've pointed out to you many times this thing you do in twisting meanings around. This is not meant as an insult, although I do recognize that they way I wrote things was not kind, and I apologize for that.

It's truly tiring to have to keep rephrasing the things you write. Why can't you just quote what I write? Or, if you're going to rephrase it in your own words, use some common sense, and put it in some way that has some possibility of actually representing what I believe.

I'll give Rosangela as an example. There are many things that she disagrees with me about, but she makes a strong effort to put things accurately, in terms of representing what I believe. Rarely do I have to correct her. And when I do, she accepts the correction, and rephrases how she puts things.

Similarly I attempt to accurately represent her viewpoint (and yours) and not present them in an uncharitable way (I'm not saying I'm perfect at this, but I do try. Almost 100% of the posts I write you I edit, very often adjusting the way I phrase things).

I'm singling her out because we've had so many, and drawn out, discussions, most of which you've been witness to.

Back to our discussion, nowhere have I spoken of the Holy Spirit "keeping us in darkness and ignorance." Surely you can see that this is an unflattering description, can't you?

And you write these sorts of things over and over again, despite repeated protestations.

So, in conclusion:

1.Please accept my apology for bring this to your attention in an uncharitable and unkind manner.

2.Please don't do this anymore.

Tom, please note that I did not misrepresent your view. Instead, I was talking about what the SOP quote does not mean. You have made it abundantly clear to me in the past you do not believe the Holy Spirit keeps us in darkness or ignorance regarding certain sinful habits and practices.

You have made it clear that the Holy Spirit waits to make us aware of certain sinful habits and practices until He feels we are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify them. In the meantime, we ignorantly sin against God and man. We are in clueless darkness concerning certain sinful habits and practices.

But, you are quick to say that the sinful habits and practices the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to us are not the types of sins that cause people around us to conclude Christianity is a joke. The sins He winks at and overlooks until the time is right to tell us are the innocuous, less offensive sins, like saying "gee" or behaving in a way the makes someone think we are being impatient.

She refers to conversion as "the result of long wooing by the Spirit of God,--a patient, protracted process." The following quotes describe her view nicely:

SD 300
The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

DA 172
Little by little, perhaps unconsciously to the receiver, impressions are made that tend to draw the soul to Christ. These may be received through meditating upon Him, through reading the Scriptures, or through hearing the word from the living preacher. Suddenly, as the Spirit comes with more direct appeal, the soul gladly surrenders itself to Jesus. By many this is called sudden conversion; but it is the result of long wooing by the Spirit of God,--a patient, protracted process. {DA 172.3}

DA 330
"Learn of Me," says Jesus; "for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest." We are to enter the school of Christ, to learn from Him meekness and lowliness. Redemption is that process by which the soul is trained for heaven. This training means a knowledge of Christ. It means emancipation from ideas, habits, and practices that have been gained in the school of the prince of darkness. The soul must be delivered from all that is opposed to loyalty to God. {DA 330.2}


In light of the quotes posted above, are you sure you experienced the miracle of rebirth the instant you believed in Jesus? She says, "impressions are made that tend to draw the soul to Christ. These may be received through meditating upon Him, through reading the Scriptures, or through hearing the word from the living preacher." These are things that happen before rebirth occurs.

Also, you seem to feel you are not perfect yet because the Holy Spirit still hasn't revealed things about your character that need changing. Are these things that will keep you out of heaven if they are not confessed and crucified? Or, can you take them with you to heaven and work on changing them there? The reason I ask is due to the following insight:

4T 429
The characters formed in this life will determine the future destiny. When Christ shall come, He will not change the character of any individual. Precious, probationary time is given to be improved in washing our robes of character and making them white in the blood of the Lamb. To remove the stains of sin requires the work of a lifetime. Every day renewed efforts in restraining and denying self are needed. Every day there are new battles to fight and victories to be gained. Every day the soul should be called out in earnest pleading with God for the mighty victories of the cross. {4T 429.2}

LDE 295
If you would be a saint in heaven you must first be a saint on earth. The traits of character you cherish in life will not be changed by death or by the resurrection. You will come up from the grave with the same disposition you manifested in your home and in society. Jesus does not change the character at His coming. The work of transformation must be done now. Our daily lives are determining our destiny. Defects of character must be repented of and overcome through the grace of Christ, and a symmetrical character must be formed while in this probationary state, that we may be fitted for the mansions above.--13MR 82 (1891). {LDE 295.1}

Yes, I'm sure.





It's not possible to believe in Jesus and not be born again, because to believe in Jesus is to be born again. That's what the phrase "believe in Jesus" means. It means, to be converted, to be born again, to be justified by faith, to be pardoned, to have the law written in the heart, to be under the New Covenant; to be in Christ; these are all synonyms.



She said these "may" be received through the items she mentioned, but I wasn't doing any of these things. I have no doubt that the Spirit was drawing me unconsciously, but it way by other mechanisms. God is not limited in how He works.



No, I didn't say this.



To me the issue is very simple. If we were in God's presence, would we like Him? Would we want to be around Him? Would we long to be in His presence? Would we wish to live by the principles of His government?

GC speaks of this:



So I'll be in the one group or the other; either I'll long to flee from God, or long to be in His presence. My disposition one way or the other will decide my destiny.

She also writes:



What should motivate us in following Christ is not whether or not we will be saved, but the loveliness of His character.

I went back and looked, and you were responding to what I had said, so the natural reading of your remark is that you were responding to my position. That is, the thing immediately preceding your comments was not an SOP quote, but something I said.



The Holy Spirit doesn't keep anyone in darkness or ignorance. Our ignorance is due to ourselves, not to the Holy Spirit.



There wouldn't be much point in bringing something to someone's attention that they are unable to understand, would there?



I never said anything about people concluding Christianity is a joke. I wish you wouldn't do this. You recast the way I put things in a distasteful way.



This whole way of looking at things is moot, I think. The important thing is our relationship to God. Do we love Him? What do we think of Him? What do we think of the principles of His government, which is to say, the way He treats people? Is it attractive? Is that the way we want to live? Do we want to be His friend?

By beholding Christ, we become changed into His image. The Holy Spirit will reveal to us the behaviors we need to focus on in due time. If we offend someone by being unChristlike is some way, He will bring that to our attention.

Tom, I just realized we are off topic, so I went back to see where we got off track. The basis our current discussion is the following exchange between Rosangela and I:


I asked Rosangela if the clamorings of fallen flesh nature contaminate character, and she answered, I don't know. Then she switched gears and spoke about depraved hearts. She believes the origin of selfish impulses, attitudes, thoughts is a depraved heart. She does not believe sinful flesh nature can generate or communicate them.

You, on the other hand, believe something different, right? But I'm not sure what you believe. What is the difference between a depraved, unregenerate heart and sinful flesh nature? Or, are they one and the same thing?

Also, what is the difference between our old heart and the new heart Jesus implants when we are born again?

And, how does all this relate to the human heart and human nature of Jesus?

I commented on Rosangela's main point, which I was happy to see, because it exhibited a Christian spirit.

The heart in Scripture represents the innermost thoughts, the inner part of a man. It is not the same thing as the flesh, which represents tendencies or traits which are passed to us genetically. That which is passed to us genetically does not contaminate us, because it is not volitional.

As I stated before, the new heart represents the new desire that the Holy Spirit instills in us, wherein we desire to do God's will, to love Him, and to honor the principles of His government. We have a new perspective; old things are passed away, all things are become new.

Nevertheless, we have still made millions of selfish decisions over of lives, and the effects of these don't just go away in a moment. This would be impossible, without destroying us as people. We are not robots, but flesh and blood, who require healing from the devastation of sin.

The healing begins when we are born again.

Christ never sinned, so His heart was pure. However, He took our sins upon Him, in addition to taking our nature, and that combination enabled Him to be tempted in all points as we are, to suffer as we suffer (even more), to experience fully our experiences as human beings. Therefore He is able to uniquely understand us and the strength of our temptations, and to be able to help us in time of need.

Tom, thank you for answering my questions and addressing my comments. I agree with you that heart and flesh are separate aspects of mankind. Flesh is inherited sinfulness whereas heart is cultivated sinfulness. One is the byproduct of the other. Both are strengthened each time we indulge sin. Though related, each is a separate source of internal temptation.

However, you seem to be suggesting that we retain a large part of our old man heart after we experience the miracle of rebirth. This concerns me. Doesn't Jesus say He will take away our stony heart and give us a heart of flesh? Why, then, does He leave most of it in tact?

What is the difference between being tempted from within by our fallen flesh nature and being tempted from within by our old man heart? Isn't our old man heart the byproduct of cherishing and acting out the unholy clamorings of fallen flesh nature? If so, how can we tell the difference between being tempted by one or the other? Is it possible that our old man heart died when we were born again and that it is our fallen flesh nature that remains to tempt us from within?

Of course, Jesus inherited the same sinful flesh nature we inherit. He was continually tempted from within to cherish and act out the same unholy clamorings we have to resist every day. But He resolutely resisted the voice of His fallen flesh nature. He never wavered between resisting and cherishing the unholy thoughts and feelings that bombarded His sinless soul. He loathed them. They disgusted Him.

Jesus never cultivated an old man heart. He never converted the clamorings of His fallen flesh nature into an old man heart. Thus, He never experienced the clamorings of an old man heart. Instead, He resisted the same sins in the form of hereditary sinfulness. In this way, Jesus began life on earth as a born again believer. He did not possess old man heart propensities to sin.

The flesh isn't strengthened by sin, nor weakened by obedience. It is what it is.



No, I didn't say that.



I didn't say this either.



Why would someone care?



Then He wasn't really tempted, was He? If someone tempted you to eat dung, would you be tempted?



This is ignoring the fact that He bore our sins.



Is sinfulness hereditary? If so, then Jesus would have that too, right? (since his hereditary is the same as ours)



Jesus bore our sins. He was never completely like a born again believer.

Christ bore our sins, took our nature, and because of this combination of factors was tempted in all points as we are. But He never yielded to temptation.

When we are born again, not only do we retain our sinful nature, we also suffer the residues of having sinned. Being born again does not destroy the impact of millions of wrong decisions. There is still a great deal of healing to take place, a great deal to learn and to unlearn.

But Tom, her statements in this letter agree with every other statement that SHE made...that is what counts...perhaps they don't agree with all her contemporaries, but her contemporaries were not inspired, she was, so why do you want to force her to agree with them? She never contradicts herself or disagrees with the Bible....so why bring all these quotes from the contemporaries in to try to prove she meant something other than what she clearly says she meant? That is what people do, when something is very clear, and they are trying to "muddy the waters".

TE: The flesh isn't strengthened by sin, nor weakened by obedience. It is what it is.

MM: Each generation contributes to sinful flesh, thus strengthening it. For nearly six thousand years now fallen flesh has been gaining momentum. “Each age, as it passes, bequeaths to the one following its accumulation of contamination.” (RH 2-11-1902)

TE 174
The race is groaning under a weight of accumulated woe, because of the sins of former generations. And yet with scarcely a thought or care, men and women of the present generation indulge intemperance by surfeiting and drunkenness, and thereby leave, as a legacy for the next generation, disease, enfeebled intellects, and polluted morals."--Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 31. {Te 174.3}

CH 609
Parents may have transmitted to their children tendencies to appetite and passion, which will make more difficult the work of educating and training these children to be strictly temperate and to have pure and virtuous habits. If the appetite for unhealthy food and for stimulants and narcotics has been transmitted to them as a legacy from their parents, what a fearfully solemn responsibility rests upon the parents to counteract the evil tendencies which they have given to their children! How earnestly and diligently should the parents work to do their duty, in faith and hope, to their unfortunate offspring! {CH 609.3}

TE 171
The thoughts and feelings of the mother will have a powerful influence upon the legacy she gives her child. If she allows her mind to dwell upon her own feelings, if she indulges in selfishness, if she is peevish and exacting, the disposition of her child will testify to the fact. Thus many have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil. The enemy of souls understands this matter much better than do many parents. He will bring his temptations to bear upon the mother, knowing that if she does not resist him, he can through her affect her child. The mother's only hope is in God. She may flee to Him for strength and grace; and she will not seek in vain.-- Signs of the Times, Sept. 13, 1910. {Te 171.1}

TE: I didn't say this either.

MM: Then what did you mean? Does the new man mind and heart Jesus implants require repentance and reformation? Does the old man heart and new man cohabitate within us vying for first place?

The point is, are these inclinations to being selfish in the body or in the mind?


In the case of the divinity of Christ, she just wrote some statements, and let their content gradually sink in the minds of our ministers. It seems to me she did the same in the case of Christ’s nature, but she didn’t write about it in her published works because the time had not yet come for this. Perhaps Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and other leading ministers were not yet prepared to accept that content at that moment. But she knew that eventually these writings would be brought to attention and read. As I pointed out in previous discussions, she didn’t mention this subject just to Baker. She had written about it in her private diary in 1890, which is 5 years before the letter to Baker, if memory serves me well.

“He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. His finite nature was pure and spotless, but the divine nature that led Him to say to Philip, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father’ also, was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties. {16MR 182.1}

“But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. {16MR 182.2}

“The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 182.3}


I was referring to Haskell (in the second article):

"Some of the strangest doctrines I have heard is the seal of God cannot be placed on any person of gray hairs, or any deformed person, for in the closing work, we would reach such a state of perfection, both physically and spiritually, and then could not die. I said to brother Breed...that I expected the next I would hear we could get a new set of teeth in this life. Well, brother Breed said, that was preached by some."--S. N. Haskell, to E. G. White, October 3, 1899. {14MR 65.2}


Yes, but Ellen White never answered those questions, because if she had done so, probably we wouldn’t be having this discussion.


And in your opinion, why is it that they need a Savior?


The argument was not that. The argument was that God had created a faulty law, impossible to be obeyed. Would God create a faulty law? Obviously not. Yet this was Satan’s argument.


It does, but it wasn’t well stated. What I meant was, the argument that if Christ did not take a selfish nature we are excused for not obeying the law is false. Why? Because it relies on another false argument - that temptations are stronger for those who have a weaker resistance.


Answered by the quote of 16MR, above. A common idea at that time, as today, was that Christ had taken the human nature but was not capable of yielding to temptation, as you can see by the quote, which says,

"To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.”

Again, this was the subject of the letters that had been coming to Ellen White. They had nothing to do with what Jones and Waggoner were preaching.

There is more than one way to interpret her writings. You are suggesting a way which doesn't meet with the facts of the situation. Nobody writes in a vacuum. The phrases people used are defined by the context in which they live.

To give an example, Ellen White said that Christ took our "sinful nature." To any person alive, whether SDA or not, at the time EGW wrote this, this meant that Christ took our inherited inclinations, or tendencies, to sin. So how do you explain her using a phrase that would be understood to communicate the exact opposite of the idea you believe is correct?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:



This is Stephen Haskell quoting from The Desire of Ages! He was working in concert with Ellen White in fighting against the Holy Flesh movement. He quoted her book, which deals with Christology, and explained her meaning: "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

Thus it is very clear that Ellen White was understood to be saying the same thing her contemporaries were. This is the important point; not simply that her contemporaries were saying a certain thing, but that they understood her to be saying that same thing.

So how likely is it that someone coming along 50 or 100 years after she's dead and no longer able to explain her meaning (which we was able to do, of course, when Haskell quoted her and explained her meaning in the RH article) is going to be correct in a reinterpretation that requires we take the following leaps of faith:

a.Ellen White used a common phrase ("sinful flesh") to mean something that no human had used it to mean before her.
b.The phrase she used ("sinful flesh") actually meant what those who used the phrase "sinless flesh" meant.
c.She never bothered to correct anyone who misunderstood her meaning of this phrase.

Not very.

Given this is what you meant to communicate, I don't think it was phrased very well, but I agree with it.

I meant what I said. Why don't you something I said, and ask a question about it if you wish.

To become a part of the mind, Christ would have had to have at some point refused to deny Himself. But He never did this, so He retained "the mind of Christ."



This seems to me to be an incredibly fanciful viewpoint to take. You're suggesting she took a course of action which was foreign to her way of doing things. She was very direct in meeting error, regardless of the circumstances. I could cite countless examples of this.

She wrote:



Your idea would have her acting contrary to her own advice on this point. Rather than correct Haskell and Waggoner in using an unsound argument to combat an opponent, you have her countenancing what they did.

It also has her specifically endorsing a sermon in the strongest terms whose subject and contents were presenting a view that she disagreed with!



I don't think it would have made any difference at all. She said Christ took our sinful nature, and that doesn't make any difference.



Not because God condemns them.

You seem to be saying that babies need a Savior because God condemn their sinful nature, thereby making God the causative factor in their needing a Savior. I'm saying that they need a Savior for other reasons, and that God's view on the matter (e.g. condemnation) is not the cause of their need, but a recognition of it.



This is not an argument that appeals to human beings. I've never met a single person who believes that it is not possible for holy angels nor unfallen beings to keep the law.

However, I have met many people who question whether fallen man can keep the law.



You mean "sinful nature," not "selfish nature." Ellen White says that Christ took our sinful nature. If He did not take our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are. That's what she argued.

You take her argument to mean that if Christ had not taken the nature of a man (any man, fallen or unfallen), then He could not have been tempted as man (any man, fallen or unfallen) is tempted. But, once again, you are suggesting an argument that answers a question nobody has. Nobody doubts that Christ took the nature of a man (as opposed to, for example, that of a giraffe?), but people do question whether Christ took *our* nature, that is, the nature of a fallen man.

In regards to her response to the letters she was receiving, she was preaching along side of Jones and Waggoner who preached on righteousness by faith, arguing that because Christ took our fallen nature, He made it possible for us to obey the law. That her response to the questions which she received was due to what people had heard from Jones and Waggoner's sermons needs to be taken into account.

They preached that Christ took our fallen nature. That's why she received letters questioning this. They weren't preaching that Christ was tempted like we are, but they He took our fallen nature. She gave, as an argument for why J&W were correct in asserting that Christ took our fallen nature that this was necessary in order for Him to be tempted as we are.

So, in your opinion, when we receive selfishness as an inheritance we don't receive it in the mind?


If this was the case, why did she wait some 50 years to correct the error of arianism, and after she did it, she didn’t correct those who remained in the error?


Who said she considered this a fundamental article of faith? Not even the Trinity was considered a fundamental article of faith.


Which reasons?


Come on, Tom. Every day we hear the argument that God’s law was abolished (if it wasn’t faulty, it wouldn’t need to be abolished).


Well, it’s the selfish nature we have to battle against.

“Men are selfish by nature. They act from impulse, without reference to the will of God.” {RH, January 6, 1891 par. 7}

“If you will battle against selfish human nature, you will go steadily forward in the work of overcoming hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” SW, February 23, 1904 par. 3}


Wrong. Many people think that, even as a man, He was not capable of yielding to temptation, because He was also God. And it’s this that Ellen White is referring to.

“He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. ... To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 182.1-3}

Because of our nature, we have tendencies to sin, including being selfish. When we give way to those tendencies, they enter our mind. Christ always denied Himself, and resisted all inherited tendencies to sin, so they never entered His.



You're disagreeing that Ellen White was direct in meeting error? Here's something else she wrote:



I believe she followed her own counsel.

In regards to your question, this is a whole separate difficult discussion (in terms of the Trinity and SDAism), but I question your premise that EGW waited 50 years before correcting people regarding the Trinity.



She did. The context is the message of justification by faith which Jones and Waggoner presented. There were those who doubted the importance of the message, not considering it one of the pillars of the faith. She responded that justification by faith is the third angels message in verity.

Both the divinity and humanity of Christ were fundamental to the message Jones and Waggoner presented of righteousness by faith.

The following brings out the importance of Jesus' humanity:





The other reasons don't matter to my point. Here's what I wrote:

"Not because God condemns them.

You seem to be saying that babies need a Savior because God condemn their sinful nature, thereby making God the causative factor in their needing a Savior. I'm saying that they need a Savior for other reasons, and that God's view on the matter (e.g. condemnation) is not the cause of their need, but a recognition of it."

The point I'm making is that God's view on the matter does not create the reality of the situation, which is that babies need a Savior. Rather, God's view on the matter is a recognition of the fact that babies need a Savior (for whatever reason).

If it were simply a matter of God's condemning sinful nature, God could simply choose not to condemn it, and then babies wouldn't need a Savior (under what you looked to be saying). I'm saying the underlying cause would still exist, independent of whether God condemned sinful nature or not.



This isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the possibility of keeping the law, not that it was abolished by the cross. That's a different argument which doesn't involve Christ's human nature.

The argument that people make is that we cannot keep the law because of our fallen natures. If Christ had taken our fallen nature, He would have fallen too. That's what those who wrote to Ellen White were arguing:



This is not arguing that Christ could not have had the nature of a man in general, but of a fallen man, because nobody argues that Adam could not keep the law. The argument is that we, fallen human beings, because of our fallen natures cannot keep the law.



Wrong what? Writing "wrong" is not helpful at all. If you disagree with something, please just write out what you disagree with.



The context doesn't bear this out. She wrote:



She wrote that people had been saying:

Christ could not have taken man's nature.

Why?

Because then He would have fallen under similar temptations as us.

This is the same argument people make today. Christ could not have taken the fallen nature of Adam, because then He would need a Savior too. This is what people say.

Please keep in mind that the context of her response, "Letters have been coming to me ..." has to do with the sermons of righteousness by faith which Jones and Waggoner were presenting. In their presentation of righteousness by faith, the fact that Christ took our fallen nature was a central feature. It makes perfect sense that people would hear this and wonder about it, because it wasn't a common idea. So they made the point that if Christ had taken our nature, He would fallen under similar temptations.

She responded that if Christ had not taken our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are, and could not have been our example. What nature is she talking about? Fallen human nature. That's the only thing that makes sense, because nobody doubts that Christ took human nature.

She did not write, "Letters have been coming to me affirming that Christ could not have been tempted" but "Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man ..."

Also, whenever Jones and Waggoner spoke of how Christ could be tempted as we are, their point was always that this was the case because Christ took our fallen human nature. EGW had to be responding to something that Waggoner and Jones actually preached. Your suggestion doesn't tie back to what they preached.

Tom, in light of the following dialog, what do you believe about the difference between 1) our old man heart, 2) our the new man heart, 3) our sinful flesh nature, and 4) the heart and nature of Jesus.


I asked Rosangela if the clamorings of fallen flesh nature contaminate character, and she answered, I don't know. Then she switched gears and spoke about depraved hearts.

She believes the origin of selfish impulses, attitudes, thoughts is a depraved heart. She does not believe sinful flesh nature can generate or communicate them.

You, on the other hand, believe something different, right? But I'm not sure what you believe. What is the difference between a depraved, unregenerate heart and sinful flesh nature? Or, are they one and the same thing?

Also, what is the difference between our old heart and the new heart Jesus implants when we are born again? Do we retain our old man heart after we are born again, after Jesus implants the new heart?

And, how does all this relate to the human heart and human nature of Jesus?

If selfishness is not in the mind, the only other possibility is that it is in the body. I completely disagree with this view.


It depends on what you define as “error,” and the importance she attributed to it, as in the case of the Trinity. She said,

“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” - RH, December 20, 1892


OK. It was essential that Christ took human nature – He had to be a man to redeem the human race. He must be subject to temptation, as man is, in order to overcome temptation united with divinity and bring him power. But what is the basis for saying He had to take the selfish tendencies of human nature?


Maybe, but I want to know what they are.


Of course. He condemns selfishness, doesn’t He? How can He approve what constitutes the essence of sin? If we receive selfishness as an inheritance, it is only natural that He condemns this inheritance.


The following is I think the third parallel passage I quote. When will you believe?

“But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and therefore we cannot overcome as He overcame. But this is not true; "for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. . . . For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Christ knows the sinner's trials; He knows his temptations. He took upon Himself our nature; He was tempted in all points like as we are. ... Those who claim that it was not possible for Christ to sin, cannot believe that He took upon Him human nature. Christ was actually tempted, not only in the wilderness, but all through his life. In all points He was tempted as we are, and because He successfully resisted temptation in every form, He gave us a perfect example.”{BEcho, November 1, 1892 par. 6, 7}

The ideas which are common in all the quotes, including yours, are: 1)Christ’s human nature, b) His possibility of yielding to temptation, or sinning, and 3) that He is a perfect example. The quote you mention was written in 1890, the quote from my previous post was also written in 1890, this article was written in 1892 – all from the same period. (I didn't verify the date of the first parallel quote I posted.)

The mind has to do with one's governing principle. The brain allows one to think. When you say, "the body," this encompasses the brain.

Christ took our nature, which is to say He had brains like ours, with brain stems like ours. These tendencies "bubbled up" to Christ's mind, like they do for the rest of us, but He never said "yes" to them. He always denied Himself. He "please not Himself" (Rom. 15:3)



I completely agree with the thought she expresses in her last paragraph.

My point in regards to the quotation I cited speaking of the importance of sound arguments when meeting error is that they (Ellen White, Stephen Haskell) were meeting the error of the Holy Flesh by arguments. She said:



You are saying this counsel does not apply in the case of the Holy Flesh because Christ's human nature was not a fundamental article of faith. Therefore she was OK with Haskell's countering their ideas with arguments which were unsound and to misquote her writings in so doing.

I don't see this as a possibility. I believe she had to much integrity to allow this. I believe she would have corrected Haskell both in relation to misquoting her, and in regards to the argument that he was using, so that sound arguments would be used. I believe this is in perfect harmony with her counsel. I think your idea that it's OK to use unsound arguments for anything other than what you consider to be fundamental articles of faith is not a good principle to go by.



I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Here's an explanation:



Does that answer your question?



To name one, if Christ had not agreed to be our Savior, the human race would not have lasted past Adam, and their wouldn't be any babies around to save.



He condemns selfish choices or decisions. He does not condemn us for selfish tendencies we have passed to us biologically. That would hardly be fair, as we have no control over that.



I'm not sure what you're saying here. By not approving, do mean simply that God sees a sinful nature as something not desirable? If so, I agree. If you mean that it is something which causes one which has such a nature to be condemned, then I would ask how you understand the fact that Christ took our sinful nature:



What would this mean, for example?

To reiterate my main point, regarding what you said regarding babies, it is this:





Believe what?

What you're quoting in the "parallel passage" is not applicable to this situation where Ellen White was responding to letters about what Jones and Waggoner were preaching. You have to tie back her comments to something that Jones and Waggoner preached, because she was responding to questions that arose as a result of their preaching.

How do you do that?

Here's what I hear you saying.

"This is Ellen White's argument. People had questions as to how Jesus could fall to temptation because Christ was divine. They thought that because He was divine, He could not be overcome by temptation. In order to show this was a wrong idea, Ellen White emphasized that Christ was also a human being, and so could be tempted, and could fall, just like any other human being."

I understand this argument, and understand how you could apply this to the 11/1/92 article you cited. However, how can you apply this argument to a statement that says:



What is being questioned is this:

a.Man did not have the same nature as man

because

b.then He would have been overcome by temptation like we are.

So what nature is this talking about? It can only be fallen nature, because nobody questions that Christ had the nature of a man.

I'm sorry we seem to be talking past each other, but I'm not understanding what you are understanding this sentence to mean (the one quoted above). Do you understand it to mean, "Letters have been coming to me affirming that Christ could not have been overcome by temptation because He was divine"? That seems to be how your are understanding it. But that's not what it says.

Perhaps you could phrase what you think the sentence means in some other way so I can see how you are understanding it.

Now, Tammy...: she didn't differ with her contemporary church leaders on the humanity of Christ. That she agreed with them and they with her on church & Bible teaching is the simplest reason for why we generally quote her written statements as the published SOP: it has been documented (Touched with Our Feelings, available from the ABC) that on the humanity of the Saviour there was official, literary, unanimous agreement in her day.

"Muddying the waters" started in 1949, not during Ellen's life time: the word "sinful" in reference to Christ's human nature was removed from its context of explaining the incarnation, in the 1949 revision of Bible Readings for the Home Circle. That was the first official literary dissonance in our church history.

As for this long forgotten Baker letter - and Sister White only allowed her published writings to be used in building the church generally, it does indeed agree with her uses of "tendencies" and "propensities" and "corruption". In our individual life time and character building, inclinations and habits are, respectively, synonymous with the first two, and the corollary of the latter is the third word. Tendencies do not corrupt us by themselves: they must be acted on for that to happen; propensities are the side-effect of personal corruption. What we get from our parents affects our sinful inclinations/tendencies as obvious, hereditary baggage for our nature, about which there is little dispute among us - I hope!!

In this letter she wrote that "corruption never rested on him". His assumed sinful humanity (wording in SOP that is indisputable) never experienced corruption: WOW! It is paramount that we generally distinguish in our nature - and as believers: sinful flesh, sinful mind, "mind of Christ", character. Character depends on what the mind opts for in the flesh, as we make moral choices.

Do we have both the sinful and "mind of Christ" as believers? Yes, for the sinful mind is only eradicated when we are changed into immortality. Yet, having our selfish, sinful minds due to our past as sinners, we opt by grace through faith for the Spirit of Jesus' leading which is utilising & experiencing the "mind of Christ". How else(..., Tom,...: you haven't spoken directly to this "sinful mind" point, yet) are we temptable at all as believing, sinful humans? That we are called to follow Jesus, and as we learn to follow him more closely, spells starvation to our sinful mind and flesh: is not this starvation the suffering which Jesus is said to have undergone in that he "learned obedience by suffering".

Jesus' merits are our example as he fits us for walking into eternity should the Father wish us not to see death; all other believers still follow Jesus' example and there is strictly no limit to spiritual growth in perfecting Christlikeness - as he defines and fashions it, except as we set limits - do we allow him to do as much as he wants...even ridding us of all our sinful character traits while we yet possess sinful nature. That is of course the point at which we each say either,"Amen!" or ,"Impossible!" for whatever reason we disagree with such spiritual heights of Godliness for ourselves.

I'll stop there, for that is the meaning and context in EGW's writings for "tendency", "propensity" and character "corruption", for Jesus and us. Her response to that spiritual challenge & calling was (actually!) unequivocally,"Amen!"

You don't think so, eh?

On condemned human nature, Tom, no-one ever said that God condemns us for our human natures, but that human nature is condemned by its own sinfulness. "Condemned" here refers only to the death that comes from unbelief in the face of God's grace in Christ.

I know you don't like God being made to look like he's taking the blame for sin and its effects, but, since we opt for sin and Lucifer did before us on his own volition, God's response to our choice is justly, holy and rightly expressly to condemn sinful human nature. Doesn't taint his character; just clarifies & glorifies his character, since he gave us his only begotten Son to save us from ourselves and our natures - two separate but simultaneous tasks.

Colin, nice post. Regarding your "sinful mind" question, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did Christ have the "sinful mind" that you are talking about?

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Could you try again?

I offered no opinion one way or the other regarding whether or not God condemns sinful human nature. My point was that it is not God's condemnation of human nature which causes babies to need Saviors.



Again, I was careful not to offer an opinion as to whether or not God's condemns human nature, as before I could do so I would have to know what one meant by the phrase. However, regardless of this point, my point was that it is not because God condemns human nature that babies need Saviors. God's condemnation would be due to a recognition on God's part of the reality of the situation, a recognitional thing as a opposed to a causitive thing.

Tom, it might be helpful to keep in mind what Rosangela said about the relationship between sinful flesh and character contamination. Here it is:


She isn't sure about it. If the sinful clamorings within do not contaminate character then she shouldn't have a problem with Jesus experiencing them. Also, becoming aware of them isn't the same thing as being guilty of them. So, again, she shouldn't have a problem with Jesus keeping them under the control of a sanctified will and mind.

2MCP 432
There are thoughts and feelings suggested and aroused by Satan that annoy even the best of men; but if they are not cherished, if they are repulsed as hateful, the soul is not contaminated with guilt, and no other is defiled by their influence. {2MCP 432.2}

I noticed this, MM, and explained my response. I thought she exhibited a Christian response in regards to her comments about repentance. I think an understanding that we need Christ, that repentance is in order, is of more importance than a correct understanding of Christ's human nature (which is certainly not to say the latter is not important).

On the sinful mind and Christ, just as much as he took our sinful flesh but lived a righteous life, so he took the sinful mind of our nature but subjected it to his "mind of Christ" which he pioneered quite successfully (I speak modestly). His solution for us includes condemning the sinful mind, though that part of the "flesh" is seriously lost sight of in view of his "mind of Christ".

Inasmuch as the two covenants are simultaneous, so the sinful and righteous minds are simultaneous: Jesus perfected the better one, we are slower to learn that tactic.

As for condemned human nature, its sinfulness is consumed by God's very presence. Thus it is both mortal and destined with the Devil and his angels for eternal damnation and annihilation at that day. This is the condemnation which is natural for us and for God: it's just according to God's holiness that sinfulness as begun and defined by Satan is subject to eternal death. This is the death which every sinful human is in need of saving from because human nature itself is rotten, even if we come to believe in Jesus: he saves us from our sinful mind, takes away our guilt, and ultimately also takes away the condemned humanity we were born with.

Three of the four elements of RC original are Biblical: sinful, so inclined to sin, morally weak in dealing with our sinfulness and depraved or captive to that sinfulness. This is human nature. The depraved sinfulness constitutes the condemned status of the nature. Jesus took such condemned equipment, equipped it with God's Spirit's power, and lifted us out of the mire by grace for our faith experience. Our sinful humanity is naturally condemned and we are thus redeemed from that fate by Christ, since we are in need of a Saviour but our nature is irredeemable, and thus was crucified by Christ to save us from "this body of death". He thus suffered the condemnation due both our nature and ourselves: both severed his spiritual relationship with his Father, from Gethsemane onwards, for that is the condemnation for the sacrifice for sin of the Lamb of God.

Oh, well, there's the broader context again...it just slipped out.

I agree with this. I think I agreed with what you said, regarding "sinful mind," but I wouldn't touch that phrase with a 10 foot pool. That is far to open to be misunderstood, IMO. I think sticking with "sinful nature" or "sinful flesh" is enough. The problem is that "mind" is not dealing with equipment alone, but how that equipment is used. Christ had a brain like ours, but His mind was unique. It was not sinful, but sinless, because not even by a thought did He consent to temptation. This is how I would put things. However, He took our nature, and, more than that, He bore our sin. Not just on Gesthemane or at the cross, but throughout His life.



If taking sinful flesh could sever one's relationship from God, it would have done so throughout His life, since He had our flesh during His whole life. He also bore our sin His whole life as well. This didn't start at Gethsemane.

She did not comment about whether Haskell’s arguments were sound or not.
As the first link I posted about this showed, all the previous efforts of Haskell and others had been vain, and the “holy flesh” fanaticism was only broken after Ellen White’s testimony in the 1901 General Conference and R. S. Donnell’s confession as a result of it. We have to look at her arguments, for her arguments were sound.


To begin with, this argument is completely flawed. Since when someone does not sin for the reason that he/she inherited no tendencies to sin? Why did Adam and Eve sin? Because they inherited tendencies to sin or because they did not lay hold of the divine power?

This argument says,
Christ inherited no tendencies to sin
This is why He did not sin.

When it should say,
Christ laid hold of the divine power
This is why He did not sin.


This has to do with a second probation, not with salvation.


“Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God.” {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}

Why does God condemn it?

“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}

This means we are born in opposition to God’s law. That's why we are condemned.


Certainly not as meaning that He took the moral sinful nature with which we are born.

“The Lord created man's moral faculties and his physical powers. All was a sinless transcript of Himself.” {3SM 133.1}

Do you think Christ was born with sinful moral faculties, like us?


Look at the arguments Ellen White employs to reply to the thought expressed in the letters:

A. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example.
B. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been.
C. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper.

You still could apply “fallen nature” to the first argument, but not to the other two. If a man does not have a fallen nature, he can’t be tempted? If a man does not have a fallen nature he can’t sin (yield to temptation)?

A, B & C make perfect sense, however, in case Ellen White’s argument was that, if Christ’s divinity conferred to Him a special power which made his human nature somewhat different from ours and prevented Him from yielding to temptation, He could not have been tempted as we are.

Still another parallel quote:

"Christ's overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. ... The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan's temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God's Holy Law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God's power to help in every emergency." {6MR 341.1-4, [1892]}

Well, that's the point. If Haskell's arguments were unsound, she would have followed her own advice, and commented on it. She did not comment because his argument was sound.



It doesn't matter that her arguments were sound for my point. My point is that she said that our arguments need to be sound when meeting our opponents, but according to your ideas she didn't care whether they were or not. Supposedly she sat by silent while

a.Haskell made the arguments to her while corresponding to her
b.Haskell made the same arguments in public that he made in private correspondence to her
c.Haskell quoted her writings, gave to them a foreign meaning, and used them to present an unsound argument
d.Waggoner spoke at the General Conference session for the purpose of arguing against the holy flesh.

You also assume that you are better able to interpret her meaning than Haskel was. He worked with her and spoke to her. Waggoner did the same, and preached side by side with her. But in spite of this they supposedly did not understand her view on the nature of Christ. In fact none of the church understood that Ellen White alone believed that Christ did not have inherited tendencies to sin. And she never made that point public in a way that any of her contemporaries could understand it. But almost a century after her death, you are able to correctly understand that her view was in reality different than everyone else's while her contemporaries could not.

In addition, supposedly she used the term "sinful nature" to mean something that nobody else meant by that term, the same thing that those who used the term "sinless nature" meant, and never corrected those who misunderstood the unique meaning she had for that phrase.

I'm sure you're familiar with "Occam's razor," that the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. The simplest explanation is that by saying that Jesus Christ took our sinful nature that she meant what every other person who said this had meant, which is also the same meaning all of our church publications attributed to the phrase.

Also the simplest explanation regarding why she didn't correct Haskell when he quoted the Desire of Ages in the Review and Herald, nor Waggoner when they preached side by side, nor when he preached at the 1901 GC session, is that she agreed with what they said.

As Ellen White and Jones and Waggoner preached together following the 1888 GC session, they had many hours to spend together while traveling from place to place. How likely is it that the subject of Christ's human nature never came up? How likely is that the she never would have given her opinion on the subject to them?

Not likely.

Waggoner's citing the Catholic argument. He's explaining why it's flawed.



You can't be saved if you're not alive. Without Christ as Savior, they would never have been alive to be saved.



Ok, this is better. If babies needed a Savior simply because God condemns human nature, then God could simply stop doing that, and the babies would be fine. But there is an underlying reason why God condemns human nature, which is what we need to get to. So babies need a Savior not because God condemns human nature, but because they have human nature.

I really think this would be better discussed in a separate thread, but to briefly comment, you are concluding that because we are born with a disinclination to hold to the truth and practice virtue that God condemns us. It would not be reasonable for God to do so, because we, when born, have no control over our inclinations. Judgment, in order to be fair, has to take into account how we respond to light.



Since babies have rejected no light, there is "no sin," and no condemnation, no "frown of God."



You're putting together different word combinations that are customarily used, so it's hard to know what you mean, but I believe that Christ assumed our nature after the human race had sunk in moral value after 4,000 years of sin, a sinful nature, one which had been degraded and defiled by sin, one which has all the same liabilities and weaknesses ours has. I believe He accepted the working of the law of heredity like we do, that no exception was made to His humanity to weed out inclinations that come to us through our parents. Indeed, I don't think this is even a possibility (I mean genetically possible).

Here's what happened.

a.Jones and Waggoner preached on the nature of Christ.
b.Those listening had questions.
c.They asked Ellen White.
d.Ellen White responded that Christ did indeed take our fallen nature, as Jones and Waggoner were preaching, and she explained why that was necessary.

Here's why it was necessary.
A. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example.
B. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been.
C. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper.

If Christ did not take our fallen nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our fallen nature, He could not have been tempted as fallen man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not have been our helper.

She is arguing that Christ took our nature (i.e. fallen, our nature is fallen), which enabled Him not only to be tempted, but to be tempted as man (i.e. fallen man, which is to say US! how *we* are tempted, this was Jones and Waggoner's whole point). If He were not tempted *as we are tempted* He could not be *our* helper. He could have been unfallen Adam's helper, but not our helper (This is just what Jones and Waggoner explained).



It doesn't make sense because it does not tie back to what Jones and Waggoner were preaching.

When she says "letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have taken the nature of man" (from memory), she meant, "letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have taken the nature of fallen man" because that's what Jones and Waggoner were preaching. If Jones and Waggoner were preaching that Christ's divinity did not confer to His humanity some special power that made it possible for Him not to be tempted, your idea would be possible. But since they weren't preaching that, it's not.

The question that people were asking her is as follow:

a.How could Christ have taken our nature?
b.I don't understand how this can be the case, because had He done so, He would have fallen under the same temptations we do.

She answered, that Christ had to take our nature (i.e. fallen) in order to be tempted as we are, and in order to be our example.

Sorry about repeating myself, but I'm trying to make clear the points that you are addressing, which are that her response has to tie back to questions people were actually asking, and tie back to what Jones and Waggoner were actually preaching.

Regarding the quote you provided, it says that if we give to Christ's human nature a power it is not possible for us to have, we break the completeness of His humanity. The power of not having inherited tendencies to sin is not a power it is possible for our human nature to have. So, according to her statement, if we give Christ's human nature that power, we destroy the completeness of His humanity.

The big weakness I see in your approach to interpreting her writings is that you do not take into account the historical setting. You attempt to interpret words and phrases as if no one in the world existed but Ellen White. But her writings (and no writings) can be understood in this way. One has to take into account the setting in which one lives.

For example, when she used the phrase "sinful nature," that meant something to those listening to her or reading her. It meant that Christ took our inherited inclinations to sin. Now if that's not what she meant, she had an obligation to explain what she really meant, because that's how everybody understood her, and she knew that to be the case.

What point would there be to communicate something which would be misunderstood by 100% of the people receiving that communication?

In the end, God is the causative factor. He causes life to abound in those who commune with Him.

Unfortunately, because of Adam's sin, our natures are depraved. And because selfishness is the essence of depravity, selfishness is the defining characteristic of depraved humanity. Though we were created in the image of God - love - selfishness took the place of love.

But selfishness is incongruent with God's character and incompatible with His presence. IOW, the selfish cannot commune with God. Hence, death are the wages of selfishness. That's why our depraved human natures are justly condemned by our holy God.

Can God just choose to not condemn depravity? Yes. But that would mean He would make selfishness normative. Consider the result: a universe run by a selfish and omnipotent God. I think it's better that He continue to condemn depravity, in all whom it is found.

So, in a very real sense, God's condemnation of depravity is a recognition of a reality that is caused by His own existence.

Can He be accused of causing the death problem? Perhaps. But His provision of eternal life in Christ, to all who would accept it, is more than enough to make up for any concerns.

"Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God."


So, would there be any reason why such a baby would not be in heaven?

How would God's causing life to abound require babies to need a Savior?



From EGW:



S. N. Haskell quoted this, and commented: "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

I looked at EGW's statements regarding "depraved nature," and it was not clear to me if she had in mind what solely that which we receive from Adam. I notice she writes:



I see Webster's lists "corrupt" as the synonym for "depraved," and gives the following as synonyms for "corrupt"

"debased, debauched, decadent, degenerate, degraded, demoralized, depraved, dissipated, dissolute, perverse, perverted, reprobate, warped"

It lists as related words "crooked, cutthroat, dishonest, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous; contaminated, spoiled, tainted; bad, evil, immoral, iniquitous, nefarious, sinful, vicious, wicked"

A couple of these EGW applies to Christ's human nature, including "degraded," and "sinful." She speaks of "evil tendencies," "corrupt principles," and "tendencies to evil" in relation to the human nature Christ assumed. However, usually, with most of the terms I mentioned, she associates these terms in a way which implies participation in sin. So we need to be very careful in how we use terms to not give the impression Christ sinned.

Here's a simple principle we can follow. Whatever our human nature is that we receive from Adam (not including any participation in sin by ourselves), that's what Christ received. The ladder which reaches from heaven to fallen man could not fail by a single run, which was understood to mean that Christ took "fallen nature with all its hereditary inclinations."



"Selfishness" can be speaking of an inherited inclinations, which Christ, by taking our nature, also took. But I would feel very uncomfortable, myself, calling this nature "depraved." It appears to me you are mixing together ideas which should be kept separate. There is selfishness which is due to one's participation in sin, and tendencies to being selfish, which is passed by heredity. Since we have no control over our heredity, it is not reasonable to suppose that God would condemn us for something outside of our control. The following comes to mind:



So condemnation comes when light is rejected, which clearly would not apply in the case of babies.

However, I hasten to add that I'm not at all sure what it is you were wanting to say. I could easily be misunderstanding you here. I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent your view.



I don't believe it is possible for God to not condemn depravity, if depravity includes deliberately acting contrary to the principles of His government.



I'm not really understanding this. It's not "better," IMO, it's the only possibility. God cannot deny Himself, and to accept selfishness as a valid alternative would be to deny Himself. It's not that God could have created a universe where selfishness was a viable principle, but chose not to, because He viewed the alternative of unselfishness as superior, but there was never any such possibility.

In the Desire of Ages, EGW speaks of the "law of life" for the universe, which she likens to a "circuit of beneficence". She illustrates this by water, which falls from the clouds, runs to the sea by rivers, and returns to the clouds. The circuit is characterized by receiving from God and giving to others. This is the law of life for the universe.

Selfishness, OTOH, receives from God, but does not give back in return, neither to God nor others. This is the law of sin and death. Selfishness is not death because God decided that things would be better this way, but because it is not the "law of life." If it's not the law of life, it's death.

God recognizes and warns us that selfishness is death, but He does not make this so.



This looks to be saying that God's existence causes depravity. I can't believe this is what you actually mean.



That He can be accused of it is certain, because that's exactly what Satan has done. However, it's a false accusation, for Satan is the author of sin and all its results.

Yes. God will only take people to heaven, whether babies, adults or whatever stage, that will be happy there. Because of its parents influence, a baby can be unfit for heaven. EGW speaks of this in 3SM 313 and following. I think page 315 may have the statement I have in mind.

You say babies have no sin, no condemnation, and no frown of God. Yet, some babies will be unfit for heaven? Sinless, yet cannot be happy in heaven? How so? What else, other than sin, makes one unfit for the companionship of holy beings?

God's abundant life is not the problem; that's the good part. The sinner's inability to commune with God is the problem, causing the need of a Savior. Any person who cannot stand in the presence of God as-is needs a Savior.

Selfishness is incompatible with God's presence, and therefore, incompatible with life since He is the source of life. Anyone who is incompatible with life needs a Savior.

Parse the sentence. What is caused by God's existence is the "reality." And the "reality" is that selfishness always kills.

Using SOP to define the SOP, we find that EGW said, "Selfishness is the essence of depravity." We can find many synonyms in a dictionary or thesaurus which may or may not apply. The safe way is to let inspiration define inspiration.

Jesus took our nature, fallen, but not corrupted. That's a pretty good lighthouse to keep us on the right path. She said His nature was not corrupted. She also said that our natures are depraved.


Has there been a group within Adventism that taught that Christ sinned? You seem to be very concerned that we don't confuse people on that point. But I don't see any confusion there at all.

You also bring this up every time it is pointed out that Paul put homoioma in Rom 8:3, rather than just making the plain statement that Jesus came in sinful flesh, if that was what he really meant. (I'm a big proponent of "say what you mean.")


Well, the last time my ladder's rungs only went down to hereditary tendencies, I was still in diapers. So if Jesus only went down as far as hereditary tendencies, He can't help me where I am today. To top it off, He only had 4000 years' worth of bad heredity to deal with, while I have 6000. The great law of heredity limits the damage to His heredity to only about 67% of mine.

But the quote says "Christ reaches us where we are." It does not say that Christ reaches us where we were when we were born. In addition, it would be a great stretch to say that my mother was favored of heaven when I was conceived, since she was in willful violation of God's revealed will. Furthermore, unlike Him, my inclinations do include those that result from personal participation in sin. So I see this emphasis on Christ's heredity as a misguided and futile attempt to make His ladder reach down far enough.

The key is not His hereditary inclinations. As I have previously shown, that accounts for less than 1% of what He dealt with. If His ladder truly reaches us where we are, then you guys need to get past His heredity and see more fully what He experienced.

In short, I most definitely and vehemently disagree with the idea that the ladder which reaches from heaven to fallen man, that could not fail by a single rung, is to be understood to mean that Christ took "fallen nature with all its hereditary inclinations."

This is the same thing I've been saying, isn't it? Selfishness leads to death, and God recognizes this reality. God is not the causative factor here, but selfishness.

Arnold, does "nature", as it relates to human nature, always mean the same thing in the SOP? Doesn't it mean different things depending on the context? For example, sometimes it refers to internally generated sinful clamorings, unholy thoughts and feelings that strive for the mastery. At other times it refers to character. Sometimes, though, it refers to form, the innocent and legitimate needs communicated by internal organs. It also can refer to the will, the power of choice.

Wouldn't these differences have a bear on what Sister White means when she uses the word "nature" in a particular quote or context, especially as it relates to Jesus' human nature? In the following quote she says Jesus took our form and our nature. In this case nature does not refer to bone, body, and blood.

"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan’s temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted. (4aSG 115)

In the next two quotes nature is in contrast to the nature of angels. His nature was perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. In this case it cannot refer to form since it was defiled by sin. But it could refer to character.

"His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own. (3SM 129)

"He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. (16MR 181)

In the next three quotes nature means Jesus inherited the same tendencies and temptations we do. He had to deal with the same problems we do. He was tempted from within and from without in the same way and for the reasons we are. He had no advantage over us. If His nature communicated sinless desires and suggestions He would have had an advantage not available to us. Instead, He had to rely on the same heavenly tools we do because He possessed the same inherited tendencies and temptations we do.

"Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. (OHC 48)

"If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was “in all points tempted like as we are.” Heb. 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God. (DA 24)

"If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter. The work of Christ was to take from the claims of Satan his control of man, and He could do this only in the way that He came – a man, tempted as a man, rendering the obedience of a man. (7BC 930)

If Jesus possessed Adam's pre-fall sinless nature there would have been no reason for Him to partake of the divine nature. Like Adam, He would have possessed the tools necessary to form a perfect character without having to partake of the divine nature. The reason Jesus had to partake of the divine nature like we do is due to the fact He could not form a perfect character with the nature He inherited.

My point in listing the synonyms is that some of the synonyms were used in certain ways, while others were used in other ways. Specifically, some could be used just to point to the equipment itself, such as "sinful," "defiled," and "degraded." Others she didn't use that way, but used to imply participation in sin.

Christ took the same equipment we have, with the inherited inclinations, but never sinned. So the synonyms she used which imply participation in sin ("depraved" may be one she used this way) should not be applied to one's biological human nature.



This was understood to mean that He took our sinful nature, but never sinned.



Because He never sinned.



We have sinned.



Haskell addresses the difficult being referred to:



So yes, this is a real problem to be concerned about.



Well, people can be confused by it, as Haskell points out.



Paul did say what he meant, which is why he used a word which means "like" instead of a word which means "different." Paul's meaning is that Christ came in sinful flesh like ours. Similarly Paul said:



As "likeness of mean" means Christ was a man, so "likeness of sinful flesh" means Christ had sinful flesh. This is what SDA's understood. For example:





My point was that EGW's contemporaries understood her to be saying this. They have an advantage over us, in that they were contemporaries of Ellen White, and they communicated with each other.

Now that she is dead, we can advance any theory we wish, and she cannot correct us. Not so with Haskell, who quoted The Desire of Ages, and interpreted EGW as saying that Christ took fallen humanity with all its inherited inclinations. She had every opportunity to correct him regarding her views. It strains things to the point of incredulity to think that she would allow Haskell to publicly misquote her and advance unsound arguments, given both her character and her counsel regarding such matters.

Those who lived and worked with her understood her words in a certain way. You, who live roughly 100 years later have an idea that her words had a meaning that none of her contemporaries understood. You are advancing an unlikely theory.

Let's take any historical figure, say Abraham Lincoln, as an example. Let's say there's some phrase Lincoln used which could be understood by us, over 1000 years later, in more than one way. But all of his contemporaries understood that phrase to mean a certain thing. Clearly a theory that would have Lincoln's phrase being correctly understood by people who lived more than a century after his death but misunderstood by his contemporaries would have to be viewed as suspect.

"Sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" was understood by SDA's and non-SDA's alike to mean a nature with tendencies to sin. Ellen White said that Christ took our sinful nature. Her contemporaries understood her to teach that Christ took a nature with tendencies to sin, and she knew that her contemporaries understood her to be teaching this, and she used language which, had it been used by anyone else, would have meant that Christ had inherited tendencies to sin. Putting this all together, one wonders how there is room open for an interpretation of her writings that would have Christ taking a nature without tendencies to sin. If that were the case, why would EGW say that Christ took our sinful nature, a phrase understood to mean a nature with tendencies to sin? If she really believed Christ didn't take inherited tendencies to sin, she couldn't have used language any less clear than "sinful nature."

Would you include physical predispositions as tendencies to sin? For example, the heredity of some children predisposes them to alcoholism more than the average. Do you include that?

I think a strong argument can be made that such physical factors count as tendencies to sin. EGW and her contemporaries could very well have taken such things into account when they wrote.

However, that is not my focus when it comes to the similarities/differences between Christ's nature and ours. Like us, He surely bore some physical damage. He probably bore mental damage like the rest of fallen humanity. But did He suffer moral damage like us?

If He was not morally damaged, as the rest of us are, then no matter what, He was significantly different. Moreover, He was different in the most important aspect of life.

If He was morally damaged, as we are, then one could say that His nature was the same as ours. The only difference would be in the magnitude of the damage.

But if you would argue that His example of victory depends on having the same strength of propensity toward sin, then He would have to be the most damaged man there ever was or will be.

I say that Jesus was not morally damaged in any way. Would you agree with that?

The meaning is variable, to be determined by the context.

However, some statements are more definitive than others. When EGW describes the threefold nature of humanity, we need to see that as more foundational than when she says that Jesus came in our nature. We need to understand which are definitive and which are derivative. Confusion there will lead to confusion almost everywhere else.

Note that in such uses of "nature" by EGW, she tends to put in an exception clause. If Christ's nature was identical to ours in every way, the period would have come 6 words earlier.

But also notice that she doesn't always include the exception, as in the 3SM quote. In that case, the contrast is simply between human nature and angelic nature; the same contrast would be valid between Gabriel and unfallen Adam. The 16MR quote contrasts Christ's human nature with angelic nature, but with the clarification that there is a distinction between His nature and ours. Only when it can truly be said of us that we have no taint of sin can we say without reserve that Christ's nature was identical to ours.

Regarding your post #98834 (which I'll address in a separate post) we seem to be talking about different things. What I've been emphasizing is that the suggestion that Ellen White did not teach that Christ assumed our human nature, with all its inherited inclinations, is not viable because of historical considerations. You seem to be trying to parse her writings in a vacuum, as if Haskell, Prescott, Jones, Waggoner, and countless others did not exist.

I have pointed out that:

a.Ellen White wrote that letters had been coming to her, saying that Jesus could not have had our nature, because if He had then He would have fallen under similar temptations that we do. Given that she was preaching side by side with Jones and Waggoner, this can only be understood as teaching that Christ took our fallen nature in order to be tempted as we are, as fallen human beings. For example:



This is what was being taught, and what Ellen White defended.

b.Prescott preached a sermon entitled "The Word Became Flesh." The theme of the sermon was that Christ took sinful flesh, which he called "flesh of sin," flesh identical to our own. He emphasized this over and over again, over 30 times. He used this to argue that we could obey the law.

Ellen White endorsed this sermon in the strongest language.

c.When addressing the Holy Flesh teachings, Haskell wrote to EGW:



They could have decided to fight against this teaching by explaining simply that our nature does not change before death. But they didn't do this. Their starting point in fighting against it was by emphasizing that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall.

Haskell quoted from the Desire of Ages, and explained Ellen White's meaning as Christ came in our nature, "with all its inherited inclinations."

Assuming Ellen White disagreed with Haskell, where is the record of such a disagreement? How can one rationally suppose that Ellen White would accept an unsound argument like this when she wrote:



Waggoner also used this same argument before the 1901 GC session, which EGW attended.

d.Ellen White used language which could only have been interpreted by her contemporaries as meaning that Christ's inherited nature had tendencies to sin. This is demonstrated by the fact that they, in fact, understood her to be saying this.

She was aware of this.

It hardly seems reasonable to assume that she would use language to communicate an idea she knew would be interpreted incorrectly.

Regarding Christ and "taint of sin"



Christ came not with "confessions of sins to repentance" because He was "without the taint of sin." The human nature He assumed was "perfectly identical with our own" yet "without the taint of sin."

IOW, she is saying exactly the same thing as her contemporaries who emphasized that while Christ took a nature, or flesh, like ours, He never sinned in that nature. For example, W. W. Prescott, in the sermon "The Word Became Flesh" (which EGW strongly endorsed) said that Christ came in sinful flesh like ours, "flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, but flesh in which He did not sin."

Yes.



Yes, if by that you are referring to the human nature He assumed. That human nature was a sinful human nature, just like ours.



I'm not sure what you mean by morally damaged, but if you mean was the human nature He assumed like ours, the answer is yes. He accepted the working of the great law of heredity. What heredity passes to us, it passed to Him.

If Jesus possessed Adam's pre-fall sinless nature, or some other form of sinless nature, there would have been no reason for Him to partake of the divine nature. Like Adam, or some other sinless being, He would have possessed the tools necessary to form a perfect character without having to partake of the divine nature. The reason Jesus had to partake of the divine nature like we do is due to the fact He could not form a perfect character with the nature and tools He inherited.

In the following quotes the word "nature" means Jesus inherited the same tendencies and temptations we do. He had to deal with the same problems we do. He was tempted from within and from without in the same way and for the reasons we are. He had no advantage over us.

If His nature communicated sinless desires and suggestions He would have had an advantage not available to us. Instead, He had to rely on the same heavenly tools we do because He possessed the same inherited tendencies and temptations we do. Unlike us, though, He never turned His internal foes into sinful traits of character. Thus, Jesus was untainted by sin.

"Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. (OHC 48)

"If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was “in all points tempted like as we are.” Heb. 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God. (DA 24)

"If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter. The work of Christ was to take from the claims of Satan his control of man, and He could do this only in the way that He came – a man, tempted as a man, rendering the obedience of a man. (7BC 930)

Arnold, I trust things are well with you and your family in regards to the passing of your father-in-law. You have been in my prayers.

I haven’t had much time to visit the forum, owing to a deadline to meet, and also owing to two surgeries I had to undergo because of a wisdom tooth that hadn’t come out. I’m still recovering. But Arnold did a fine job in replying to some points, so I’ll make just a few comments.


Well, she preached side by side with her husband and, if we believe at all what she said years later, she didn't believe in the shut-door theory, although it's well known that her husband and the rest of the Adventist group believed in it. She even used the expression "shut door" at that time, but evidently it must have had a different meaning for her and for him (them).
Not to mention that her husband died as a semi-arian, believed she had seen Jupiter and Saturn in the astronomy vision of 1846, and Joseph Bates, a close associate, wrote a book saying that Christ was going to come in 1851. She never corrected any of these wrong notions, and preached side by side with them. So, Ellen White's views and her contemporaries' views were not always the same, not even when they employed the same terms.


The problem is that if she had meant what you say, she would have contradicted herself in other passages she wrote. It’s curious you don’t seem to apply Occam’s razor to the Baker letter, to the phrase “born without a taint of sin,” etc.


After being alive, but before they sin, they still need a Savior.


This refers to a different circumstance. Condemnation in Romans 5 is in opposition to justification, which is not the case in this EGW quote. A five-minute-old baby needs a Savior, and if he needs a Savior it’s because he is condemned.


It’s not this that she says. She says, “If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper.”
This argument has nothing to do with the aspect of fallen nature, but it does have to do with the aspect of divinity/humanity mentioned in the other parallel quotes. In none of the quotes Ellen White mentions “fallen nature,” but just “human nature,” “man’s nature,” etc. She is writing about Christ’s human nature as opposed to His divine nature. She is not speaking at all about “fallen nature.”

1.Regarding Haskell, you have to believe, in your view:
a.She used a term she knew nobody in the world would understand but herself in "sinful nature." If she had simply said that Christ took a sinless human nature, that would have been clear; He would have had a nature that could become weary, hungry and thirsty, but one without tendencies to evil. Everyone would have understood that.
b.She didn't bother to correct Haskell when he misquoted her.
c.She didn't bother to correct Haskell (or Waggoner) when they presented unsound arguments in public, in the R&H and GC session, even though she had given specific counsel regarding the importance of not using unsound arguments when encountering opponents.

None of the things you mentioned, shut door, semi-arianism, are similar cases to what was happening here.

If Haskell (or anyone else) had quoted a work of hers, and interpreted it as saying "therefore Christ was not eternal, one with the Father" and used this as an argument to meet opponents, and she sat by and said nothing, I could see the point. But I'm not aware of a single incident in her life which would correspond to any of a, b, or c that I mentioned above.

2.Regarding the Baker letter, it seems clear to me that she made the same points she always did, which is that Christ took our fallen, sinful nature, but never sinned. Occam's razor which suggest her writing in that letter to be in harmony with what she had written before, and in harmony with the SDA position on the subject, since their was no disharmony regarding it. Occam's razor would certainly not suggest reinterpreting her view as being different than that which her contemporaries understood. The analogy I gave regarding Lincoln, to Arthur, illustrates this point.

I appreciate you were making this point somewhat tongue-in-cheek (smiley), but it's a valid question, and I think Occam's razor is a strong argument for interpreting the Baker letter to agree with the idea that Christ's inherited human nature had "all the inherited inclinations" of human nature, as Haskell interpreted her to say.



They couldn't continue to be alive without a Savior. "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life." Every water spring, every breath, is the purchase of His blood.

So not only would they never have been alive in the first place, they could not continue to be alive without a Savior.



Why do you conclude that one can only need a Savior if one is condemned? Unless by condemned you mean simply "needs a Savior," in which case this becomes "babies need a Savior because they need a Savior."

Here's Waggoner on Romans 5:18



I agree with Waggoner here.

4.Again, regarding the "letters have been coming to me" quote, you're not tying back to anything Jones and Waggoner preached. You have to do that. The letters were coming in response to what Jones and Waggoner were preaching. What were Jones and Waggoner preaching in regards to Christ's human nature? They were preaching what I quoted:



This is what the people were hearing, and what they had questions about. Ellen White was defending what had been presented, not out of the blue coming up with some argument that no one had been presenting.

5.Ellen White endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" in the strongest language. She spoke of it's being "truth separated from error," and went on and on in regards to how the Holy Spirit was using him.

The theme of the sermon was that Christ came in flesh identical to ours, "flesh of sin," he called it. He expressed the same views I've been defending.

How could such an endorsement be anything but a goof, if your view were correct? Have you read the sermon? Over 30 times he makes the point that Christ took our sinful flesh, flesh just like yours and mine. He also made the corporate arguments in regards to Romans 5:18 that I've shared. Really, I can think of almost nothing in that sermon you would agree with, yet Ellen White went bonkers over it.

Thanks. The immediate shock is wearing off, and people are recovering. When things like this happen, it should remind us that knowing the truth is not nearly as important as knowing Him who is the Truth.

By no means! The expression “sinless human nature” would have been misunderstood, and the idea that Christ had some special power we don’t have would have been reinforced. She did apply some times the term “sinless humanity” to Christ’s human nature. But she wanted to emphasize that Christ, being “a man of our flesh, ... was compassed with the weakness of humanity” (16MR 181, 182), however she pointed out again and again that He had taken on Him “humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ibid.). The humanity that He took was without a taint of sin, not the humanity which He developed. He was born without a taint of sin. Besides, she has just one quote in which she says Christ took our sinful nature (which was republished some times). She preferred the term “fallen nature.”


Of course not.

“Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.”

Occam’s razor indicates here that “propensities” is synonym with “inclinations” or “tendencies,” as the dictionary defines the word, and that it refers to both inherited and cultivated tendencies to sin, as the text makes clear.


This has nothing to do with being alive or not. If they die five hours after being born, that is, still before sinning, can they be found in heaven or not? Did they need a Savior to get there or not?


“Condemned” means “condemned to not inherit eternal life.”

“Immortality, promised to man on condition of obedience, had been forfeited by transgression. Adam could not transmit to his posterity that which he did not possess; and there could have been no hope for the fallen race, had not God, by the sacrifice of his Son, brought immortality within their reach. While ‘death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,’ Christ ‘hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.’ [Rom. 5:12; 2 Tim. 1:10.] And only through Christ can immortality be obtained.” {GC 533.1}

"If men do not make Christ their personal Saviour, and become true and pure and holy, there is only one course for the Lord to pursue. He must destroy the sinner, for evil natures cannot inherit the kingdom of God." {16MR 273.3}


I see no evidence whatsoever that the letters received were necessarily related to Jones’ and Waggoner’s preaching. However, if they were, it was just because these preachers had touched the subject of Christ’s temptations and this had led people to think about it.


Why would I not agree with it? It’s a nice sermon. He not even once said in that sermon that Christ had taken humanity with its tendencies to sin. I understand the “sinful flesh” he speaks about as being the body with which we are born. Sinful moral tendencies are in the mind – it’s these I don’t believe Christ possessed.

?? Let's take this outside of an SDA conversation involving Ellen White. What power or issue are you talking about? I'm not aware of any Christian having the sort of problem you are talking about.

Before becoming an SDA, I belonged to a non-denominational Bible believing church. In regards to Christ, I believed what you believed, which is to say that Christ had a nature without tendencies to sin, like unfallen Adam had, but that Christ could become tired or hungry, etc. (My viewpoint changed when I read "The Desire of Ages") No one I've ever known believe that Christ had some special power attached to His human nature. It was just a human nature, but one without tendencies to sin.

It seems to me you are raising a non-existent issue, addressing questions people aren't asking. If the question is, "Did Christ inherit a nature with tendencies to sin?" that is a question that is asked, but if the question is "Did Christ inherit a nature with special powers that we don't have," I've never come across that question. Also, how would calling such a nature "sinless" enforce the idea that Christ's human nature would have these supposed special powers? What special power does the word "sinless" denote?

This term is commonly used today in Evangelical Christianity. Again, I know of no Evangelicals that believe that Christ's human nature had some special power. Calling it "sinless" simply means that His nature was like unfallen Adam's in that it had no tendencies to sin.

If what you had in mind was that Christ could be tempted, and could sin, stating that He had a sinless human nature would have no bearing on this, as there are those who believe that Christ took such a nature and could not be tempted, and those who believe He took such a nature and could be tempted.



If sinless humanity means "sinless nature" then the same objection you raised would apply, which is that this would be misunderstand as Christ's having some special power. But "sinless humanity" is easily understood as meaning that Christ didn't sin.

Here are some examples of her use of "taint of sin."





Being without the "taint of sin" = not having sins. In the first quote, we could hardly have a life free from any taint of sin if our sinful nature taints us.



Here are some "sinful nature" quotes:







The first two quotes explicitly say that Christ took our sinful nature, and the last one implies it. If one considers the last quote, one can see the same argument being set forth that has been mentioned previously, which is that Christ took our human nature (i.e. sinful) in order that could keep the law "it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law".



Of course not? Of course she would not continue to make the same points she made elsewhere?

From the Baker letter:

1.The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing.

2.He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.

Breaking this up further:
1.a.Adam was created a spotless being
1.b.He could fall
1.c.He did fall

2.a.Christ took human nature
2.b.Christ could fall
2.c.Christ did not fall

Immediately after saying that not for one minute was there in Him an evil propensity, she speaks of how Christ was tempted. She's talking about being tempted, being able to fall, and sinning. It seems clear Baker's teaching involved Christ's sinning, and not just the nature he assumed. You seem to have the idea that Baker's theology was the same as that of Haskell, Prescott, Jones, Waggoner, etc., and that she is correcting that theology. The probably that this hypothesis is true is exceedingly small. There are too many obstacles to overcome.

The point I've been repeatedly making is that one cannot reasonably interpret Ellen White's writings in a vacuum, as if she lived in a world by herself. Her teachings, and the teaching of Jones, Waggoner and Prescott on this subject were well known. For example, Haskell quoted from Ellen White in "The Desire of Ages" and explained what she wrote as meaning that Christ had "all the inherited inclinations" that we have.

What I quoted to you from Romans 8:3,4 comes from what Waggoner taught. He taught this before she did, and she's using the same formula he did.

She preached side by side with Jones and Waggoner. When their view on Christ's nature was questioned, she defended it.

Let's take any historical figure, say Abraham Lincoln, as an example. Let's say there's some phrase Lincoln used which could be understood by us, over 100 years later, in more than one way. But all of his contemporaries understood that phrase to mean a certain thing. Clearly a theory that would have Lincoln's phrase being correctly understood by people who lived more than a century after his death but misunderstood by his contemporaries would have to be viewed as suspect.

Yet this is what we're supposed to believe in regards to Ellen White. Modern day interpreters can supposedly better tell us what she meant than her contemporaries.

If you tell me what you have in mind, rather than simply quoting things without comment, it's easier to figure out what you're trying to say.

You say condemned means "condemned not to have eternal life." Does that simply mean that we are mortal? So by saying that babies are condemned, you mean that they are mortal? If so, I agree. And I also agree that they need a Savior in order to have immortality. Is this your point? I'm inferring it is from the first quote.



This seems out of place in a discussion regarding infants, since infants do not make Christ their personal Savior. We know that infants will not be destroyed, so it's pretty clear this quote does not apply to infants, isn't it? To make this clear, I'll substitute "infants" for "men."



This doesn't make sense, does it?



The whole reason I've been bringing up this statement of hers is because of the historical context. She was preaching side by side with Jones and Waggoner. They went from place to place, preaching to youth, on righteousness by faith.

We have lots of examples of Jones and Waggoner's preaching. I'm not aware of any example where they made the argument you have suggested. A large weakness in your suggested interpretation is that it does not tie back to a question which could reasonably have been being asked, given what Jones and Waggoner actually preached.



Because you disagree with its themes. I'll quote from the sermon when I get home.

Look at one of your favorites.

The possibility of Jesus sinning was definitely a point of concern. Hence the emphasis on Christ's taking man's nature.

The error being corrected here is the idea that if Jesus had man's nature, He would have fallen under similar temptations. But we know that Adam in Eden fell under temptations similar to what we face. Therefore, the error wasn't even about pre- vs post-Fall.


Ask your postlapsarian friends. Everything I have ever read from a postlapsarian pen says that if Jesus had a sinless nature, He would have had a power not available to us. Priebe comes to mind, in particular. However, that idea is false, but on the other side of the road from the Holy Flesh people.

As I see it, "sinless" simply means "congruent with God's character." It says nothing about the ability to sin, since all the sinless angels have the ability to sin, and sinless man did sin.

The emphasis was on Christ's taking man's *fallen* nature.



There are several problems with this interpretation. First of all, nobody questions that Christ took the nature of a man. Secondly, nobody questions that unallen Adam could have resisted temptation. Thirdly, and most importantly, as this is the point I've been making, the whole reason I brought the quote up in the first place, is that it doesn't fit with the context.

My point has been that you are suggesting interpretations of what EGW wrote without taking into account the historical setting. You're looking at the words as if nobody existed but Ellen White. But there are historical contexts to take into consideration.

In this particular case, Ellen White was in the midst of a campaign where she was preaching side by side with Jones and Waggoner. The people had questions regarding what Jones and Waggoner preached regarding man's nature. We know what they taught, which is that Christ took our fallen nature in order to be tempted as we are. For example:



The people heard them preaching that Christ took our sinful nature, and asked how this could be, because if He took a nature like ours, we would fall to similar temptations that we fall to. EGW answered that if Christ had not taken our nature, 1)He could not have been our example; 2)He could not have been tempted as we are; 3)He could not have been our helper (being tempted as we are implies the possibility of yielding to temptation).

This interpretation ties back to what Jones and Waggoner preached.



This is referring to the quote that says if we give to Christ's human nature a power that it is not possible for ours to have, we break the completeness of His humanity. The power being spoken of here is the power of being sinless, which, obviously, a sinless nature has. Your question here clearly doesn't apply to my comment, as there is no possible confusion here. Rosangela said EGW avoided saying that Christ had a sinless human nature because that would cause confusion. What confusion would this cause? I don't see any.

As I pointed out, before being an SDA I believed Christ took a pre-lapsarian nature, as did the others in the congregation, and we never had any confusion that Christ's human nature had some special powers. I've never met anybody who had this question.

I keep hearing explanations of Ellen White's writings that involve her answering questions that I've never heard anybody ask. In addition to requiring that she used language that nobody understood, which she knew about, but didn't bother to correct, except for an obscure individual in Australia. Pretend you don't have a vested interested in what she's saying. How likely is this scenario?

On the other hand, I've met many people who question whether or not fallen man can fully overcome sin, which is what Jones and Waggoner taught. They taught that Christ took our fallen nature and because of this made it possible for us to overcome. There are many who feel that if Christ could not have taken our fallen nature because they don't believe that those with a fallen nature can fully overcome sin.



So what would be the problem in saying that Christ took a sinless human nature?

Arnold and Rosangela,

If Jesus inherited a form of sinless nature, a nature not tainted or corrupted by sin, a nature that did not war against the will of God, then He should have been able to develop sinless traits of character relying on the tools and nature He was born with, rather than having to partake of His Father's nature.

Did Jesus lay aside both His divine nature and His human nature and partake of His Father's nature? If not, why not? That is, why did He partake of His Father's nature in order to develop sinless traits of character? Why didn't He just rely on His own human nature like Adam did before the Fall, like holy angels and unfallen FMAs do now?

How was His human nature different than our human nature? What is it about our sinful nature that made it wrong or unsuitable for Him to inherit?

Why is it that we can be born again with a sinful nature and overcome as Jesus overcame, and yet it wasn't possible for Him to be born with a sinful nature and overcome?

Tom,

You are ignoring the fact that the debate between peccability and impeccability has been going on for centuries, and that a great part of Christianity believes that Christ could not sin. Just take a look at some links:

http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?p=7377

http://xrysostom.blogspot.com/2005/07/could-jesus-sin.html

http://www.drink-deep.com/2007/11/matthew-41-11-getting-started.html

http://www.growingchristians.org/dfgc/impeccab.htm

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/temptationofchrist.htm

In the link http://www.letusreason.org/Doct3.htm , for instance, the author falls into the pitfall Arnold pointed out:


This is completely false. If this was true, Adam wouldn’t have been able to sin, either.

Mike,

I think you are confusing divine nature with divine power. 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.

“He [Christ] came to impart his own divine nature, his own image, to the repentant, believing soul.” {YI, June 2, 1898 par. 8}

Although Adam was created in the divine image, he, in face of temptation, could not (and did not) develop a sinless character without laying hold of divine power. Neither could Christ.

“Satan charmed the first Adam by his sophistry, just as he charms men and women today, leading them to believe a lie. Adam did not reach above his humanity for divine power. He believed the words of Satan. But the second Adam was not to become the enemy's bondslave.” {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 6}


The satanic nature of selfishness with which we are born.

From EGW:



He took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature, so He didn't lay aside His divine nature.

I didn't ignore this. I mentioned that there are those who believe that Christ took a sinless human nature, yet could be tempted. Therefore if EGW's point was simply that Christ could be tempted, all she had to do was say that. Certainly it wasn't necessary for her to argue that Christ took a fallen human nature in order for it to be possible for Him to be tempted. As you point out, unfallen Adam was tempted, even though he had the nature of unfallen Adam.



From the first link you referenced. This has nothing to do with what EGW was arguing, nor what you suggest she was arguing against. This person says that Christ's divine nature would not let Him sin. Ellen White argued that Christ could sin because He took a nature like ours. EGW's argument does not address this person's point.

Anyway, this doesn't matter, as it doesn't address the issue, which is that Ellen White was preaching with Jones and Waggoner, and they preached like the following:



The people heard this preaching and had questions about it. They didn't preach in a manner that would lead to the questions you are suggesting Ellen White answered. You are reading her writings without considering what was happening at the time she wrote them. What was happening was that Jones and Waggoner were preaching that Christ took our fallen nature, and were making arguments like the one I just listed.

Rosangela, this is from W. W. Prescott's sermon. You agree with these thoughts?

Rosangela, you seem to be suggesting God did not design or equip unfallen FMAs with the power and strength to resist the power of evil and to develop sinless traits of character, that they must rely on the power of God to do these things, that they do not naturally possess the power and strength to do them.

But the following quotes make it clear that man was originally endowed with noble powers and the strength to resist the power of evil and to develop sinless traits of character. In contrast, man in his fallen state does not possess the power or strength to do these things. Fallen man must now rely on the power of God to enable him to use his faculties of man and body to do those things unfallen man was able to with the power and strength he naturally possessed.

SC 17
Man was originally endowed with noble powers and a well-balanced mind. He was perfect in his being, and in harmony with God. His thoughts were pure, his aims holy. But through disobedience, his powers were perverted, and selfishness took the place of love. His nature became so weakened through transgression that it was impossible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil. {SC 17.1}

DA 466
The expulsion of sin is the act of the soul itself. True, we have no power to free ourselves from Satan's control; but when we desire to be set free from sin, and in our great need cry out for a power out of and above ourselves, the powers of the soul are imbued with the divine energy of the Holy Spirit, and they obey the dictates of the will in fulfilling the will of God. {DA 466.4}

In what state was Jesus in when He became a human? Was He like Adam before the Fall? Was He able to use the power and strength He was incarnated with to resist the power of evil and to develop sinless traits of character? Or, like fallen man, was Jesus incarnated without the power and strength to do these things? Did He have to rely on the power of God for the same reasons fallen man must?

Sure, and in the passages we are discussing she says absolutely nothing about “fallen” or “sinful” nature. She just says “man’s nature” or “human nature.”


Oh, yes, of course it does. In your favorite passage, for instance, she says, “If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper.” This has nothing to do with the issue of fallen/unfallen nature, as both Arnold and I have been pointing out, since unfallen Adam could obviously yield to temptation. This has to do with the view of a especial power conferred by Christ’s divine nature which prevented Him from choosing sin, thereby making His human nature somewhat different from ours. This to me is obvious and there is no point in repeating it over and over again, so I’ll let this subject rest.


Obviously this wasn’t the case, for the reasons mentioned above.


Yes, I do, as I said before, since I believe Ellen White’s use of the expression “fallen nature” does not involve the mind in its spiritual/moral aspect.

Mike,

Where do the passages you quoted say that unfallen human beings could resist the temptations of an angel – a being superior to them – in their own power, without divine aid?

And what do you make of the passage I quoted?

“Satan charmed the first Adam by his sophistry, just as he charms men and women today, leading them to believe a lie. Adam did not reach above his humanity for divine power. He believed the words of Satan. But the second Adam was not to become the enemy's bondslave.” {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 6}

And of others, like this one?

“If she [Eve] had sought her husband, and they had related to their Maker the words of the serpent, they would have been delivered at once from his artful temptation.” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 2}

Still another quote, Mike, I hadn't been able to find earlier today:

"All the angels of heaven were prepared to come to the aid of Adam and Eve in this contest with the enemy, if they would call upon God for help." {ST, February 17, 1909 par. 2}

Rosangela, thank you sharing the quotes. But do they say unfallen beings are unable to resist the power of evil without relying on the power of God? Do unfallen beings seek God's help in resisting the power of evil for the same reasons we do, namely, because we are powerless?

"His nature became so weakened through transgression that it was impossible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil." This sentence implies that the opposite was true prior to falling. That is, prior to falling it was possible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil.

Of course, it would have been to his advantage to seek God's help. Adam and Eve were inexperienced, and it would have been wise for them to enlist God's aid in their contest with Satan.

With this in mind, though, the main question that needs to be addressed is - Do unfallen beings possess powers and strength that give them an advantage not available to fallen beings in resisting the power of evil? And, how does our answer to this question effect our understanding of Jesus' human nature? Did He have an advantage not available to us?

We inherit a nature whose powers are perverted, selfishness has taken the place of love. We are powerless to free ourselves from the control of Satan. "But through disobedience, his powers were perverted, and selfishness took the place of love. His nature became so weakened through transgression that it was impossible for him, in his own strength, to resist the power of evil." "True, we have no power to free ourselves from Satan's control ..."

1. Is our nature changed back to the way it was before Adam fell when we are born again? Are we in the same position to resist the power of evil as unfallen beings?

2. Which nature did Jesus inherit? Did His human nature have the powers and strength necessary to resist the power of evil? Or, was it needful for Him to rely on God's help?

3. In what way was His human nature different than the one we are born with? And, in what way was it different than the one we are born again with?

4. What kind of human nature will the 144,000 have after probation closes? In what way will it be different than the one we are born with? And, in what way will it be different than the one Jesus was born with?

But it was the case. We know it was the case. This is the starting point; we know what happened historically. If your interpretation leads you to conclude that something "obviously wasn't the case" which actually happened, that interpretation needs to be rethought.

The whole point I've been making is that you are seeking to interpret EGW's words without regard to the historical setting. You look at her words, and come up with the idea that she was arguing against those who had the idea that because Christ had a divine nature, His human nature could not be tempted. But we don't have to guess what happened historically, because we know. This isn't like the Baker letter where we don't know and have to guess.

What happened was the following. Ellen White had not heard what we now refer to as "the 1888 message" until she heard Waggoner preach at the Mpls. GC session. When she heard it, she was overjoyed. Unfortunately, she was about the only one. They thought she was off her rocker, and doubted whether she was still a prophet. Since the leadership would not lay hold of the light, she did, and she went preaching with J&W from place to place, often to SDA campuses.

The following represents the preaching those that was heard:



The argument is simple:
a.Christ partook of our sinful nature.
b.If not, He was not "made like unto His brethren."
c.If not, He was not "tempted in all points as we are."
d.If not, He could not help us.

Note, in particular, the following point:



It is easy to see that someone hearing this preaching would ask the question, "How could Christ have taken our nature? If He did so, then He would have fallen to similar temptations that we do."

So Ellen White addressed these questions by explaining the same thing that Waggoner was arguing:
a.If He did not take our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are.
b.If He did not take our nature, He could not be our helper.

She's saying the same thing Waggoner was.

You are starting with what Ellen White wrote, and using that to come up with some idea of history. That's backwards. We know what the history was. From that, it's easy to see that EGW's writing simply cannot be interpreted as your are suggesting. Nobody was having the question, "Did Christ's divine nature prevent His human nature from being able to be tempted?" because the preaching of Jones and Waggoner was not addressing this point. It addressed the points cited; if Christ did not take our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are, and could not help us -- the same points EGW addressed in her response.

This is just one example. The same principle applies in general across the board. For example, S. N. Haskell quoted from "The Desire of Ages," and explained publicly that EGW was saying that Christ inherited all the inclinations of fallen humanity.

Everybody (i.e. EGW, Haskell, Jones, Waggoner) is saying the same thing! We have:

a.Ellen White defending the preaching of Jones and Waggoner, using the same arguments they used.
b.Haskell quoting Ellen White, using the same arguments, citing her as saying the same thing Jones and Waggoner said, and that he (Haskell) said.
c.Jones quoting from Ellen White at the G.C. session on the human nature of Christ.
d.Waggoner preaching at the G.C. session with EGW present, presenting the same arguments.

They all present the same arguments, and defend each other's positions. When one considers the historical setting, there's simply no room to separate EGW from the mix. She's too intertwined.

Regarding Prescott's sermon, when I presented the following idea some time ago, you strongly disagreed with it:



I even used the same argument regarding Levi and Melchisedec. Now you say you agree with it? If that's really so, I'm glad we're in agreement on this point.

Also if you really believe that Christ took exactly the same sinful flesh that we have, "flesh of sin," I'm glad we agree on this point too.

No, not for the same reasons we do, for they are not weak in moral power. However, the factors which influence the strength of the temptation are both the weakness of the creature being tempted and the subtlety of the temptation. The implied concept of post-lapsarians that the difficulty of the temptation is inversely proportional to the strength of the creature being tempted (that is, that the weaker the creature, the more difficult to overcome is the temptation and, conversely, the stronger the creature, the easier to overcome is the temptation) is completely false.

“The temptations that assailed Christ were as much more intense and subtle in their character than those which assail man as his nature was purer and more exalted than is the nature of man in its moral and physical defilement.” {ST, April 25, 1892 par. 6}

“The Son of God placed Himself in the sinner's stead, and passed over the ground where Adam fell, and endured the temptation in the wilderness which was a hundredfold stronger than was or ever will be brought to bear upon the human race.”{5MR 112.2}

Christ's temptations were 100 times stronger than ours, but this was not because Christ was weaker than we. The opposite is true.


In view of the comments and quotes above, would you say that a stronger moral power constitutes an advantage?


Well, He certainly was superior to us:

“He who could take up the Son of God, and place him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and again could take him up into an exceeding high mountain, and present before him the kingdoms of the world, can exercise his power upon the human family, who are far inferior in strength and wisdom to Jesus, even after he had taken upon himself man's nature.” {ST, November 13, 1884 par. 4}

But does this constitute an advantage in terms of making temptation easier to overcome?

So you say I am seeking to interpret EGW’s words without regard to the historical setting? I’ve provided three parallel quotes – one from 1890 (the same year of the quote you provided), one from 1892, and one from 1898 (The Desire of Ages). Quotes from close years and identical subject – isn’t this historical setting? All the quotes say substantially the same thing. All of them, including the one you provided, discuss Christ’s capability of yielding to temptation – which is something that has nothing to do with the fallen/unfallen issue. Yet you insist the quote you provided has to do with Jones and Waggoner’s preaching and with the fallen/unfallen issue. So there’s nothing else I can say about this.


Did I? I don’t remember this argument in our discussions. If I disagreed, it must be with the point you were trying to make using this argument. Do you remember what the point was?

Yes, I've been trying to get you to consider the historical setting, and use that to help you arrive at an interpretation of her writings, but it appears to me that you are looking at her writings and trying to figure out ways of how what she wrote might have meant something different than what it meant to everyone else.



No. This is just more of the same, looking at her words. The historical setting is not the words of Ellen White, but rather what was happening around her, what was prompting her to write the things she did. The historical setting would consider how she was understood by her contemporaries, and she understood what they were saying.



I insist is has to do with J$W's preaching because it does. She was actually preaching with them at the time, people heard them, and asked them questions about what was being said. This is what actually happened.

The people she was addressing were hearing preaching like this:



The argument is simple:
a.Christ partook of our sinful nature.
b.If not, He was not "made like unto His brethren."
c.If not, He was not "tempted in all points as we are."
d.If not, He could not help us.

Sorry to repeat myself, but don't you agree this argument accurately represents what I quoted? Don't you agree that this is what the people would have been hearing? I could cite dozens of similar statements from Jones and Waggoner's preaching. This is how they preached. This is the argument they made. This is what the letters written to Ellen White would have been asking about. *Knowing* this allows us to interpret her response in a way that's plausible.

I'm not seeing the plausibility in your suggested interpretation. You're presenting a linguistic argument, but it doesn't match the historical reality. How does your interpretation tie back to what Jones and Waggoner were presenting? I'm not seeing this.



The same point Prescott is making, that as Levi was in Abraham's loins, so that all that Abraham did Levi did in him, so all that Adam did, we did in him, and all Christ did, we did in him. Prescott says something like "What we did in Christ, without our choice, He now wants to do in us, with our choice."

Prescott makes the statement "all were justified." (talking about Romans 5:18). He talks about a corporate justification (he doesn't use this phrase, calling it something else, like "justification by blood" I think; but it's a justification that includes all). What makes the corporate justification possible is that Christ took the same sinful nature as man (although Prescott usually speaks of "sinful flesh," or "flesh of sin."

Prescott's sermon is clearly expressing the postlapsarian perspective. Prescott's argument is essentially the same argument Jones presented at the 1895 General Conference session. By this time, Prescott had come on board with Jones and Waggoner's message, and Ellen White's endorsements of Prescott were as strong as her endorsements of Jones and Waggoner. They were preaching the same message. I can present you examples from Jones' preaching where he's making the same points Prescott made.

Tom, I don’t think it needs necessarily to tie back to what Jones and Waggoner were presenting. The subject of Christ’s humanity/divinity was also receiving strong emphasis, at least on the part of Ellen White. And the quotes themselves show clearly that the subject Ellen White was referring to was humanity/divinity, not fallen/unfallen. I’ll repeat two of the quotes:

“But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and therefore we cannot overcome as He overcame. But this is not true; "for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. . . . For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Christ knows the sinner's trials; He knows his temptations. He took upon Himself our nature; He was tempted in all points like as we are. ... Those who claim that it was not possible for Christ to sin, cannot believe that He took upon Him human nature. Christ was actually tempted, not only in the wilderness, but all through his life. In all points He was tempted as we are, and because He successfully resisted temptation in every form, He gave us a perfect example.”{BEcho, November 1, 1892 par. 6, 7}

"Christ's overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. ... The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan's temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God's Holy Law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God's power to help in every emergency." {6MR 341.1-4, [1892]}


I don’t know what Prescott said at other occasions, but what he said in this sermon is correct, and agrees with my view, not with yours. He says nothing about corporate justification. He says what I defend, that is, that while the whole humanity is connected to Adam, only those who have faith are connected to Christ.

“It is exactly so in this spiritual family. What Christ did as head of this new family, we did in Him. He was our representative; He became flesh; He became we. He did not become simply a man, but He became flesh, and every one that should be born into His family was represented in Jesus Christ when He lived here in the flesh. You see, then, that all that Christ did, every one who connects himself with his family is given credit for as doing it in Christ. ... But as Levi paid tithe in Abraham, every one who should afterwards be born into this spiritual family, did what Christ did.”

So, the difference before and after Adam sinned is moral power and strength, right? That is, he was dependent upon God both before and after to resist the power of evil, but just not as dependent before sinned?

Did this apply to Jesus, too? Or, did He possess the moral power and strength necessary to resist the power of evil without having to depend on God? If not, what was it about His nature that made Him dependent upon God like other FMAs?


No. God has promised not to allow us to be tempted above His ability to empower us to resist it unto is honor and glory.


No. And for the same reason mentioned above. However, this makes me ask - Was Jesus dependent upon the Father, like born again believers are, to resist the power of evil? If so, why? And, how does that make His human nature different than the one we inherit at birth?

Also, does our nature change at all when we are born again? If so, is it like the human nature Jesus inherited at birth? If not, in what ways are they different?

I believe Satan is less subtle in tempting fallen beings, because they fall more easily, while he has to be more subtle in his temptations to unfallen beings. But one thing compensates the other, so the degree of difficulty remains the same. For instance, if you are in the 6th grade, you must take a test designed for the 6th grade; if you are in your last year at university, you must take a test designed for that year. So I don’t think unfallen man had to be less dependent on God than fallen man to resist temptation.
I think Adam and Eve would have been able to resist obvious evil, but they weren’t able to resist disguised evil. That’s why they needed God.

It is the power of Satan that came to Adam and Eve in Eden, the deceiving, bewitching power of the fallen angel. . . . {UL 209.5}

So fully were they seduced, that they could not discern the power that was leading them into apostasy. {SpTB07 53.2}

Satan tempted the first Adam in Eden, and Adam reasoned with the enemy, thus giving him the advantage. Satan exercised his power of hypnotism over Adam and Eve, and this power he strove to exercise over Christ. {21MR 10.1}

Satan assailed Christ with the fiercest and most subtle temptations. {RH, December 17, 1908 par. 6}

In the wilderness Christ endured temptations that no human being can comprehend. Here he was brought face to face with Satan, the fallen angel, who tempted him with all his subtle power. {YI, January 3, 1901 par. 3}

The temptations of Christ, and his sufferings under them, were proportionate to his exalted, sinless character. {YI, October 26, 1899 par. 8}


After conversion, each day we advance in moral power, so our nature becomes more and more similar to that of Christ.

This isn't taking into account the historical context, which is that EGW, Jones and Waggoner were preaching together, and she was receiving letters in regards to those sermons. If you read the entire article, it's very clear she was defending Jones and Waggoner.

It does need to tie back to what Jones and Waggoner were presenting. The article is in the 1888 materials because of it's relation to Jones and Waggoner.



Since you're not familiar with what Prescott said at other occasions, you ability to offer an informed opinion here is severely hampered. EGW endorsed all of Prescott's Avondale sermons, not just this one. He also spoke at the 1895 GC session. You can check out this to see what his viewpoints were. But until having a more informed idea as to what his views are, I, for one, would not venture to make the type of statement you're offering here.



In the 1895 GC session, he said, as I stated, that "all were justified." This is corporate justification.



Do you agree there is a sense that all were justified?

Do you believe that Jesus was only able to connect humanity to divinity because He took exactly the same flesh that we have?

Only if so you can claim that you and he believe the same thing.

To ask one specific question, Prescott used Levi and Abraham to establish his point that what Christ did we all did in Him, because Levi was in Abraham's loins. Please explain to me how this agrees with your view.

Specifically what my question is, why did Prescott bring up Levi and Abraham? How does this have anything at all to do with your view?

It's pretty easy to see this isn't the case. We know there are a vast number of worlds with unfallen beings who have never sinned. There are perhaps quadrillions of such creatures, not a single one of which has fallen to temptation.

On the other hand, all of the billions of fallen human beings who are capable of being tempted have fallen to temptation.

To assert that our temptations are no more difficult to overcome than those of unfallen beings is to fly in the face of a huge mountain of evidence.

That’s why I pointed out that what he said in this sermon is correct.


Unless Prescott was talking out of two sides of his mouth, what he said in the other sermons must agree with what he said in this one. Maybe he changed his view later, but his view here is correct.


The same flesh, but not the same mind.


Please explain to me how it doesn’t.


Prescott is explaining how we are connected to the two heads of the human race. All of us are connected to Adam as our head, our representative, since we are his descendants, born into his family (like Levi was born into the family of Abraham). Jesus took our flesh, was born into the human family and became the new head, the new representative of the race. Although he died for the whole human race, only those who are born into His spiritual family are also connected to Him as their head and may be said to have done what He did.


It’s pretty easy to see that the perhaps quadrillions of unfallen creatures you mention didn’t even approach the tree and weren’t even tempted at all, because temptation is removed from them as far as possible. This is completely different from our case. Not to mention that, if Satan were dead and gone, as MM puts it, we probably would do wrong things anyway, because our nature is identified with evil.

Here's what you wrote:



Back in 1990 I read Prescott's sermons, and wrote a paper on corporate solidarity and the Gospel. My views were largely shaped by Prescott.

Jones and Prescott, in the 1895 GC sessions, spoke of how what Adam and Christ as representatives of the race. The sin of Adam is a representative sin. The righteousness of Christ is a representative righteousness.

Romans 5:18 says that as all are condemned in Adam, so all are justified in Christ. Prescott explains this not in terms of a condemned human nature passed down by Adam to his descendants (your view) but in terms of all of us being in Adam, because we were in his loins (my view). Similarly, Prescott speaks of all men being justified. Prescott speaks of different justifications. One of them he calls "justification by blood" I'm pretty sure (95% sure), which applies to all men. This is precisely the same thing that "corporate justification" is. There's no difference, other than a difference in terminology.

Another justification is justification by faith. That applies only to believers.

What Prescott presented in the particular sermon is not going to be different than his ideas in other sermons, right? So until you know what he presented in the other sermons, it would be prudent to tread carefully as to your interpretation of this particular sermon. That should be easy to see.

I'll see about presenting quotes on Prescott's other sermons. It's not as easy from here as it was at Andrews.

Regarding flesh and mind, I'm not understanding the confusion here. No one has said Christ took our sinful mind. He took our sinful flesh, with "all its hereditary inclinations" as Haskell put it.



His flesh was identical to ours, but His mind was "the mind of Christ." Christ perfectly denied Himself. He never acceded to the temptations produced by His flesh.





Here are three formulations of the idea. There should be no difficulty from reading any of the above to understand that while Christ's flesh was like ours, with tendencies to sin, His mind was unlike ours, because He never gave in to those tendencies.

Do you not see that Prescott's sermon is a post-lapsarian presentation of Christ's human nature? Christ is said to have had "flesh of sin," "exactly the same flesh that we have." Our flesh has tendencies to sin. That Prescott understood this to be the case is certain. There's also no doubt what his hearers would understand his meaning to me.



This isn't the argument though. The argument is that Levi was present in Abraham, and so paid tithes to Melchizadec in Abraham. Similarly, we were in Adam when Adam sinned, and in Christ was Christ was righteous.

"What we did in Christ, without our choice, He now desires to do in us, with our choice." This is a corporate idea being expressed.



Every world had a tree, like ours. The forbidden tree was beautiful to behold, just like ours. They were tempted no more nor less than we were. It was no more easy or difficult for us to overcome as for them. If this weren't the case, God would be guilty of partiality.

That was the case in Eden, when the tree's temptation was spatially limited. But since the Fall, our entire planet is temptation piled upon temptation. Furthermore, our forbidden tree sits in our hearts - the battle against self is the greatest battle to be fought. That is a condition unique to Earth.

Sounds like we're in agreement here.

This "greatest battle" was won by Christ.

Regarding Prescott:



For the non-Portuguese speaking (coitados)

"Pastor W. Prescott emphatically affirmed during a sermon, which was published in 'The Bible Echo' on 01/06/1896, that Christ took upon Himself our sinful nature." (Ministry Magazine, January - February, 2003)

This is the same sermon we've been discussing.

I’ll never agree with this, since I don’t believe tendencies to sin are in the body (with a few exceptions), but in the mind. Selfishness is not in the body, but in the mind. Our mind is a carnal mind and has tendencies to sin. The disinclination to obey the law of God, with which Ellen White says we are born, is of course in the mind, not in the body. The propensities of disobedience, with which Ellen White says we are born, are in the mind, not in the body. Anyone can see that.


What he thought and what he actually said are two different things. He never mentioned tendencies to sin in that sermon.



“When Eve, disregarding the Lord's admonition concerning the forbidden tree, ventured to approach it, she came in contact with her foe.” {Ed 23.3}

They, like Adam and Eve, would be tempted only when, and if, they approached the tree, which could be never. The tree was a forbidden tree and should not be approached, and if they were wise, they never approached it. A series of mistakes led Eve to approach the tree.
We, on the other hand, are in a completely different situation. We are exposed to Satan's temptations every moment, day and night, and we have no choice.

Is your disagreement is not that Christ's inherited nature had the same inherited inclinations that ours have, but with the idea that our inherited natures have tendencies to sin at all? The disagreement is not that Christ's human nature was post-lapsarian, but with what the characterization of a post-lapsarian nature should be?

Also are you disagreeing with my statement that "There should be no difficulty from reading any of the above to understand that while Christ's flesh was like ours, with tendencies to sin, His mind was unlike ours, because He never gave in to those tendencies." or are you disagreeing with the statements themselves that I quoted?



This depends upon what one means by "selfishness," "body," and "mind." If "selfishness" means a "tendency to being selfish," and "body" means "that which is passed genetically," then I disagree. The selfishness that is in the mind is not that which is passed genetically, since our minds consist of that which we choose to dwell upon, the principles we choose to lead our lives by. If we choose to act selfishly, then selfishness because of a way of life, a mindset.

Christ was genetically like we are, but His mind was unique because He always denied Himself. But He, like we, had a self that had to be denied.



True, but it is not these tendencies that Waggoner or Haskell or Prescott have in mind.



No, because the mind is not passed genetically. We're talking about apples and oranges here.



Again, the same problem. Apples and oranges. The flesh deals with what is passed genetically.

When Ellen White, or Waggoner, or Jones, or Prescott, or Haskell spoke of Christ's assuming our sinful nature, or sinful flesh, what they had in mind is that Christ took "all the inherited inclinations" we have, to quote Haskell, or the "tendencies to sin" which are common to human flesh, or human nature, to quote Waggoner. This is what it means to say that Christ took "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature."

Nobody had in mind our minds (no pun intended). The Jones quote makes that clear, as do the Waggoner quotes. Haskell, too, makes it clear that while Christ took our "flesh of sin," that this was flesh "in which we sin, but in which He did not sin."



This references cultivated tendencies to sin. Christ did not cultivate tendencies to sin.



The mind is developed, by our decisions, our choices. This is where we differ from Christ. Not because our physical makeup is different, as if He had a mind that was genetically different than ours, but because Christ never made the choices, the decisions, that we make; therefore He never developed a carnal mind.

Is the goal, then, to attain unto the human nature of Christ? Did His human nature change at all after the resurrection? Or, does He have the same human nature He inherited at birth? If not, in what way are they different?

Also, are you suggesting we can tame and train our fallen nature to be like it was before Adam fell? In other words, can we expect our internal foes to become internal friends? Will our flesh eventually stop tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus? Will the "the promptings of sin", the "antagonistic power [and] force", that resides within us, which "strive for the mastery", that wars against the Spirit and mind of the new man, gradually become a power for all that is good and righteous? If so, where does she say so?

ED 29
Christ is the "Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9. As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. But against these principles there is struggling an antagonistic power. The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist. To withstand this force, to attain that ideal which in his inmost soul he accepts as alone worthy, he can find help in but one power. That power is Christ. Co-operation with that power is man's greatest need. In all educational effort should not this co-operation be the highest aim? {Ed 29.1}

2MCP 516
"His servants ye are to whom ye obey" (Romans 6:16). If we indulge anger, lust, covetousness, hatred, selfishness, or any other sin, we become servants of sin. "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24). If we serve sin, we cannot serve Christ. The Christian will feel the promptings of sin, for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit; but the Spirit striveth against the flesh, keeping up a constant warfare. Here is where Christ's help is needed. Human weakness becomes united to divine strength, and faith exclaims, "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:57)!--RH, May 3, 1881. (SL 92, 93.) {2MCP 516.2}

AA 476
He who has determined to enter the spiritual kingdom will find that all the powers and passions of unregenerate nature, backed by the forces of the kingdom of darkness, are arrayed against him. Each day he must renew his consecration, each day do battle with evil. Old habits, hereditary tendencies to wrong, will strive for the mastery, and against these he is to be ever on guard, striving in Christ's strength for victory. {AA 476.3}

2T 687
The conflict will be close between self and the grace of God. Self will strive for the mastery and will be opposed to the work of bringing the life and thoughts, the will and affections, into subjection to the will of Christ. Self-denial and the cross stand all along in the pathway to eternal life, and, because of this, "few there be that find it." {2T 687.3}

AA 560
So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained. Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience. {AA 560.3}

First, I like that way of putting it. Rolls off the tongue.

There are SOP quotes that suggest that: We need not retain one sinful propensity. Sin will become hateful to us. We will reach the sinlessness of Adam in Eden.

The transforming power of God's grace addresses many problems.

Agreed! It does have a nice ring to it. Kudos to MM.



Clearly this has nothing to do with our inherited human nature, correct? That doesn't change until we are translated.



As it did for Christ.

Yes, my disagreement is with the statement that our “flesh” has tendencies to sin. As I’ve said in previous discussions, I think the word “flesh,” both in the Bible and in Ellen White, is used in two senses: 1) the body, and 2) the carnal mind.
Christ took our body, not our carnal mind.
We inherit sinful qualities of mind. I don’t think Christ inherited these from His mother.

“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 think there was any change in His human nature after the resurrection other than the glorification of His body.


I don't know if we will reach that point (and if we do reach, we won't know), by Ellen White says that

"When there is a determined purpose born in your heart to overcome, you will have a disposition to overcome, and will cultivate those traits of character that are desirable, and will engage in the conflict with steady, persevering effort. You will exercise a ceaseless watchfulness over your defects of character; and will cultivate right practices in little things. The difficulty of overcoming will be lessened in proportion as the heart is sanctified by the grace of Christ." {YI, September 7, 1893 par. 10}

Agreed. However, "carnal mind" has to do with participating in sin.



Agreed. Christ never sinned.



The mind involves choices and decisions we make, not genetically passed traits.



Christ developed His mind by the choices and decisions He made.



She uses the word "inherit" to include other things besides that which is passed genetically. Do you believe character that is developed by a parent is passed on by the genes?

If I understood you correctly, it is your feeling that Waggoner, Jones, Haskell, and Prescott were simply wrong in their idea that such a thing as "tendencies to sin" exist, which can be passed genetically?

I'm having some difficulty following you, because you seem to be saying two things. I'm sure you're not to yourself, so please bear with me, until I get it.

For example, EGW tells us that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity. Yet you seem to be saying He didn't, that things passed to us were not passed to Him. Am I misunderstanding you here? Or do you agree that the same things passed to us were passed to Him?

In other words, does your difference have to do with the content of what is passed to Christ (Christ did not receive the same things by heredity that we do) or the characterization of these things (Christ did receive that which we receive, but "tendencies to sin" is not one of these things -- either for Christ or for us).

It seems you are saying both things.

I might "borrow" it one of these days. I won't even ask permission, since I'm sure MM won't mind.


That depends on how one views the distinction between nature and character. Postlapsarians seem to draw a very sharp line between those two, a line that I do not find in the SOP. She speaks of our need of a transformation of nature. So she clearly includes a change of nature as part of conversion. Using this broad view of human nature, both inherited and cultivated, I see that change is needed across the board.

But DP mentioned something that I need to look into. He believes that our nature (separate from character) has a physical, mental, and spiritual component, and that our character also has a physical, mental, and spiritual component. We didn't have time to dig into it, but this sounds very strange to me.

It depends upon how she's using the term "nature." "Nature" can mean many different things. For example, it could used as a synonym to "flesh" or "character," depending upon the context.

This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with whether one is a post-lapsarian or not. This is just a recognition of how EGW used a certain word.



But we obviously can't change our heredity, right? Which is to say, our flesh doesn't change. Scripture never talks about our changing our flesh. We are told to crucify it, not change it.

"Sinful nature" and "sinful flesh" are interchangeable. At least they should be. I know of no exceptions in her writings, or the writings of Prescott, Jones, Haskell, or Waggoner. I have seen some writing about these things use these terms, and similar ones, in odd ways, however.



Just off the top of my head, I think it makes sense. I also think I see where he's going with it, but, boy, one sure needs to be careful in how one expresses the thought here.

Since babies do not make choices and decisions, you don't seem to believe they have a mind. But of course they do.
Not just choices and decisions, but your personality traits, your character traits, your likes and dislikes, your individuality, are in your mind. This is obvious.


Sure. How do you think Adam and Eve transmitted sinful character traits to their children?


Yes, but in what aspects? Did God supply perfect chromosomes? How did dominant and recessive traits work in Christ's case? There are many questions for which we have no answer. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that, from birth, Christ had to be without blemish and without spot, and I wouldn't say that about any sinful baby born on this earth.


The first one. But I should also say that I don't consider that sinful tendencies are transmitted through the "flesh"-body, but through the "flesh"-carnal mind.

Rosangela, will the "the promptings of sin", the "antagonistic power [and] force", that resides within us, which "strive for the mastery", that wars against the Spirit and mind of the new man, gradually switch gears and become a power and force for righteous and true holiness? Will the insights presented in the following passages make an about face?


At what point do the following truths become a reality for human beings? Do they describe prefall Adam?

COL 98
The natural inclinations are softened and subdued. New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. A new standard of character is set up--the life of Christ. The mind is changed; the faculties are roused to action in new lines. Man is not endowed with new faculties, but the faculties he has are sanctified. The conscience is awakened. We are endowed with traits of character that enable us to do service for God. {COL 98.3}

How does this distinction fit in with the following passages? Seems to me she says the flesh-body does indeed generate stimuli which become conscious thoughts and feelings, that they originate with the body and become known in the mind. Not the other way around. The lower passions and appetites and animal propensities are faculties of the flesh-body, not the flesh-mind.

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. (AH 127)

Such a diet contaminates the blood and stimulates the lower passions. {MM 280.4}

The lower passions of their nature have taken the reins, and that which should be the governing power has become the servant of corrupt passion. {CH 617}

The lower passions bore sway, predominating over the higher powers of the mind. {6T 697}

Intemperance inflames the passions and gives loose rein to lust. And reason and conscience are blinded by the lower passions. {4T 31.1}

Those who have not brought the lower passions into subjection to the higher powers of their being, those who have allowed their minds to flow in a channel of carnal indulgence of the baser passions, Satan is determined to destroy with his temptations-- to pollute their souls with licentiousness. {TSB 84.2}

If enlightened intellect holds the reins, controlling the animal propensities and keeping them in subjection to the moral powers, Satan well knows that his power to overcome with his temptations is very small. {Con 58.1}

Not in the context of our discussion. The word "mind" has a hundred meanings. You can't just switch indiscriminately from one definition to another.

From Webster:



Infants do not reason, so if a mind involves "especially reasons," this does not apply to infants.



According to Webster, the mind involves the will, and especially reasoning. It should be obvious that this excludes newborns.



If your parents, and none of their ancestors, had a desire to watch soccer, but you do, your children will have a genetically passed desire for watching soccer? Or if you develop a taste for Monet, your children will have a Monet-appreciation gene? If you learn to play the piano, your child will have a gene for learning the piano? But if you learn to play the oboe instead, your child will have a genetic preference for the oboe?



Let's consider:



What results are shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors?



The same way as for any other zygote. Otherwise He wouldn't be following the great law of heredity.



That's true, but this isn't one of them. "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." This is clear.



I don't know what your point is here. Is it anything other than that babies have sinful natures?

Back to the points I was making:

a.All SDA's that spoke regarding Christ's human nature in Ellen White's lifetime were post-lapsarian.
b.Ellen White was understood by her contemporaries as teaching that Christ had inherited tendencies to sin.
c.Ellen White knew this.
d.Ellen White specifically endorsed, on more than one occasion, those who were teaching the post-lapsarian position.
e.Ellen White used the language that post-lapsarians use.

We have a historical setting which does not allow for Ellen White's not having a post-lapsarian viewpoint regarding Christ's human nature.

How can you affirm that? Take a look here.


No, it isn’t obvious. Ellen White says children eight months old are already stubborn and need correction, which means they have a will. And of course it isn’t long after birth that babies know, through the faculty of the will, if they prefer to stay in the cradle or in mum’s arms.


All of these are invalid examples. There is no evidence whatsoever that a desire for watching soccer, a taste for Monet, or the preference for a given musical instrument are passed genetically. But this is what Ellen White says about transmitted tendencies:

“Did the Lord make these youth corrupt? Oh, no! Who, then, has done this fearful work? Were not the sins of the parents transmitted to the children in perverted appetites and passions? And was not the work completed by those who neglected to train them according to the pattern which God has given? Just as surely as they exist, all these parents will pass in review before God.” {1MCP 140.3}

“If Satan can persuade people to follow a course that is contrary to the principles underlying and running through every enactment of God's law, he has a chance to work upon their minds. ... This creates a train of thought which separates the soul from the Spirit of God. The mind becomes more and more infatuated, and the power to overcome temptation is destroyed. The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family.” {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}


Yes, it is that those who have sinful natures cannot be classified as without blemish and without spot. At least I don't know how any sinful baby could be classified as “without blemish and without spot.”

No, because our carnal mind (our old nature) is just crucified, not eliminated.


The physical aspect.


Of course. The advantage is not being born with a carnal mind which is at enmity with God and His law. In what respects the difficulty of temptations, however, there is no advantage.


Well, it seems to me our sinful tendencies will be subdued and overcome and, so, cut away from the character. However, they are old habits and, as such, remain in our memory and will try to reassert themselves. So, until Christ comes we will have to watch against them and force them back. Perhaps when God says that “the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind” He is referring to our sinful tendencies which will be wiped away from our mind. (Notice that, differently from you, I don’t think that they are in our body, but in our mind.)

“Watch against the stealthy approach of the enemy, watch against old habits and natural inclinations, lest they assert themselves; force them back, and watch. Watch the thoughts, watch the plans, lest they become self-centered.” {AG 332.5}

“Those who are truly converted grow in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and as knowledge of Christ increases, they see more clearly where their own weakness lies; they realize the deep depravity of their natures. They understand the strength of sin, and know the power of their old habits. . . . They have daily a sense of their entire inability to do anything without the help of Jesus Christ.” {TMK 62.2}

“Temptations will come to the newly-converted soul. Old habits and practices will seek for the mastery; but in the name of Jesus, resist every temptation.”{YI, August 9, 1894 par. 8}

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


Of course the physical component (unbalanced appetites and passions) influences the mind, however, our main problem is with the mind.

“Many professed Christians who passed before me, seemed destitute of moral restraint. They were more animal than divine. In fact, they were about all animal. Men of this type degrade the wife whom they have promised to nourish and cherish. She is made an instrument to minister to the gratification of low, lustful propensities. And very many women submit to become slaves to lustful passion; they do not possess their bodies in sanctification and honor.... Imagine, if you can, what must be the offspring of such parents. Will not the children sink still lower in the scale? 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}

We've been talking about newborns. By the age of 8 months, a baby has made many choices and decisions.



That was my point. I asked you, "Do you believe character that is developed by a parent is passed on by the genes?" You responded, "Sure." But now you say there's not evidence that the preferences I mentioned are passed genetically. I agree.

There's no evidence any developed character traits are passed genetically. Do you know of any?



This is rather arguing in a circle, isn't it? For years, over a century, SDA's taught that Christ took our sinful nature, yet was without blemish. Perfection was understood as having to do with the character, not with the flesh.



Babies haven't developed a character.

Rosangela, I asked some questions I was interested in your thinking on. I didn't see that you addressed these. Sorry if you already did.

If I understood you correctly, it is your feeling that Waggoner, Jones, Haskell, and Prescott were simply wrong in their idea that such a thing as "tendencies to sin" exist, which can be passed genetically?

EGW tells us that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity. Yet you seem to be saying that things passed to us were not passed to Him. Am I misunderstanding you here? Or do you agree that the same things passed to us were passed to Him?

In other words, does your difference have to do with the content of what is passed to Christ (Christ did not receive the same things by heredity that we do) or the characterization of these things (Christ did receive that which we receive, but "tendencies to sin" is not one of these things -- either for Christ or for us). Or both?

And when exactly did he begin to make these “many choices and decisions”? Since he was born – if he prefers to stay in the cradle or in mum’s arms, if he prefers to suck a pacifier or his finger, etc. He began with elementary choices and decisions.


Yes. If someone acquires lustful habits, or intemperate habits, or any other moral habit, he may pass these inclination to his children. Again, how did Adam transmit sinful character traits to his children?


I don’t buy this argument.

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.]

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.

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?