Yes, the Baker letter:

"Because of sin, his [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience." {13MR 18.1}

So, since when I think of "nature" it is primarily in terms of the holistic paradigm, the view in which the SOP says our "natures" must be transformed, when somebody asks me if Jesus had a sinful nature, unless "nature" is defined to exclude the spiritual/moral aspects of man, I should answer clearly and emphatically, "No!" Agreed?

If she was correct in what she wrote to Baker, those "hereditary inclinations" would include the "inherent propensities of disobedience" with which we are born.

Anyway, here are some quotes about what children can get at birth:

Far from being a red herring, this is the crux of my beef against postlapsarianism. Hence, when asked, "Did Jesus have a sinful nature," I always answer, No.

Consider the nature of Adam after his fall. Did he have a sinful physical nature? Did he have a sinful spiritual/moral nature? I answer: Yes, yes.

But when asked about Jesus, I answer: Yes, no. Therefore, some have labeled me as having the "hybrid" view. And some, who deal only with broad brush strokes (who, I suppose, have not considered that pre-Fall Adam would get "no, no" for those questions) have labeled me as prelapsarian.

In any case, if we're talking about physical nature, I believe Jesus had what Adam had after his fall. But if we are talking about nature in general, with no qualifications, they are not the same.


Since human nature includes the spiritual/moral nature, and some would argue that this aspect is more definitive of what it means to be human as compared to one's physical nature, it was overzealous to say that "In His human nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you." If Jones had said, "In His physical nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you" then he would not have had to clarify the confusion about bringing Christ's mind into it, as the mind is an important part of human nature.

Tom has posted many SOP passages which clearly teach Jesus was indeed born with the same sinful nature we are born with. Unlike us, though, Jesus never once acted out the unholy tendencies and clamorings that warred against Him. This is the same state of those who experience rebirth and walk in the Spirit and mind of the new man abiding in Jesus . The clamorings of fallen flesh cannot contaminate character while thus oriented. Once our "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character) is crucified we are no longer counted guilty in the eyes of God. Covered with the blood and righteousness of Christ, empowered to live sinlessly, maturing daily in the fruits of the Spirit - we stand before God and the Universe blameless, holy, undefiled, and perfect. In the same way, Jesus possessed sinful flesh nature without incurring condemnation or contamination of character.

Did Jesus have an "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character)?

MM,

Are the propensities of disobedience in the physical, intellectual or spiritual/moral aspect of our nature? According to the passage quoted by Arnold, "fathers transmit to their children their own ... enfeebled ... moral powers." Did Jesus have enfeebled moral powers?

More or less. I would certainly agree a question like this should not be answered "yes," without clarification. However, I wouldn't answer it "no" either without clarification.

Actually, the way you put it (that Jesus Christ had a sinful nature) is something I would address on the spot. If we say "had," that can give the impression that Jesus did something (like sin) to get that nature. OTOH saying Jesus "took" that nature is clearer, and this is the language that the SOP uses (as well as her contemporaries).

I wouldn't say "if she was correct" in what she wrote to Baker, but something like "if what she said in the Baker letter means what I think it means ..." as there is a lot of debate as to what she was wishing to say in the Baker letter. Given that it was a private letter, not intended for public consumption, and we don't know what Baker was teaching, I think it would be better to do as she suggested and concentrate on works she intended to be read publicly.



As good parents, there were things which would not have been transmitted to Jesus, just as these things need not be transmitted to other children who also had good parents (noting that, of course, in the case of Jesus, there was only one human biological parent).

A better question to ask is, "Did Jesus take a sinful nature," and if asked that, you could respond, "Jesus Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature."

It looks like the crux of your beef may be based on certain misunderstandings.



In context, it is clear what Jones was referring to. When Jones said, "Don't bring His mind into it," so that the mind was excluded, what is left?

What Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner taught is all very clear. Haskell presented the same thought in reading from The Desire of Ages and explaining, "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."