In context, what you say re: Jones may be true. But keep in mind that the "not a particle of difference between him and you" was 50 pages before "Don't bring His mind into it." That's A LOT of context in between. He should have said it upfront.

But I'll have to take a break until next week. I have a sermon to do tomorrow. I'll be back.

Ellen White wrote:



Should we find fault with her as well, since she didn't explain upfront what you suggested Jones should have?

My nature is human, not angelic. In that context, Christ's was identical to mine.

But look at the immediate context of Jones' statement. Two paragraphs after "not a particle of difference between him and you" we find this:

When he's speaking of "human nature" that is in no wise different from ours - a point so important to him that he believes our assurance of salvation depends on it - was he merely talking about Christ's physical nature, completely separate from His mind and spiritual/moral nature? If so, take this as one piece of evidence why I say postlapsarians have an inordinate fascination with physical matters.

His point is the same as Ellen White's, the point that Haskell made in quoting her above, as well as Prescott in the sermon I quoted. There is a ladder which connects divinity with fallen humanity (divinity united with "flesh of sin" is how Prescott puts it). Sister White speaks of Christ's taking our human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. If this ladder had missed by one rung of reaching us, we would have been lost. This is fallen human nature, with all its hereditary inclinations is how Haskell explained EGW's DA statement.

Here's a statement from Waggoner:

A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.

The following statement in the book of Hebrews is very clear on this point:

For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. ["For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." Revised Version.] Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Heb. 2:16-18

If He was made in all things like unto His brethren, then He must have suffered all the infirmities and been subject to all the temptations of His brethren. Two more texts that put this matter very forcibly will be sufficient evidence on this point. We first quote 2 Cor. 5:21:

For He [God] hath made Him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

This is much stronger than the statement that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is the same mystery as that the son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness. So Paul says to the Galatians that "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4,5.

In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." "For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Heb. 2:18; 4:15, 16.

One more point and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." How was it that Christ could be thus "compassed with infirmity" (Heb. 5:2) and still know no sin? Some may have thought, while reading thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus by bringing Him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the "Divine power" of our blessed Saviour, who Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man in order that He might exalt man to His own spotless purity, which He retained under the most adverse circumstances. His humanity only veiled His Divine nature, by which He was inseparably connected with the invisible God and which was more than able successfully to resist the weaknesses of the flesh. There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harboured an evil desire nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory. When He lay in the tomb, under the power of death, "it was impossible that he should be holden of it," because he "knew no sin."

But someone will say, "I don't see any comfort in this for me. To be sure, I have an example, but I can't follow it, for I haven't the power that Christ had. He was God even while here on earth; I am but a man." Yes, but you may have the same power that He had if you want it. He was "compassed with infirmity," yet He "did no sin," because of the Divine power constantly dwelling within Him. (Christ and His Righteousness)

Ellen White used language similar to Jones. I'm not understanding why the change in criteria while speaking of one or the other. Jones is taken to task because He says the human nature Christ took is the same as ours, yet Ellen White says the same thing, saying it was "identical" to our own. Jones says our salvation lies in this fact. Ellen White says Christ's humanity is everything to us, and the if the ladder which comes to meet us had failed by a single step, we would have been lost.

The emphasis of White, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, etc. was that Christ humbled Himself to meet us where we are, uniting divinity with humanity, so that by faith we may obtain victory while encumbered in sinful flesh, just as Christ did. Christ blazed the path for us, making it possible for us to do the same. We see this emphasis again and again.

For example, Prescott said

No! And neither do believers who are abiding in Jesus, as it is written -

Romans
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
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.

Ephesians
4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Jesus received from Mary all the traits and weaknesses and imperfections common to the human race. All the faculties of mind and body He inherited from Mary were physically and morally depleted. Listen:

DA 48
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. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}

Possessing such a nature and body, however, is not a sin, nor does it corrupt or contaminate the character. Sin is not inherited; instead, it is cultivated. And, praise the Lord, Jesus never cultivated sin. Jesus reined in His appetites and passions and kept them under the control of a sanctified will and mind thus they were holiness unto the Lord. So it may be with believers who crucify self and abide in Jesus. Listen:

TE 216
If Christians will keep the body in subjection and bring all their appetites and passions under the control of enlightened conscience, feeling it a duty that they owe to God and to their neighbor to obey the laws which govern health and life, they will have the blessing of physical and mental vigor. They will have moral power to engage in the warfare against Satan; and in the name of Him who conquered appetite in their behalf, they may be more than conquerors on their own account. {Te 216.1}

3T 84
You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. 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. (3T 84)

14 MR 294
Often Satan conquers us by our natural inclinations and appetites. These were divinely appointed, and when given to man, were pure and holy. It was God’s design that reason should rule the appetites, and that they should minister to our happiness. And when they are regulated and controlled by a sanctified reason, they are holiness unto the Lord. {14MR 294}

But are the propensities of disobedience in the physical, intellectual or spiritual/moral aspect of our nature?

Also, what does Ellen White mean when she says that Christ "is a brother in our infirmities, but not possessing like passions. As the sinless One, his nature recoiled from evil" {ST, August 7, 1879 par. 18}?


Ellen White says that Seth "inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin" {1SP 60.2}.

EGW sometimes used "nature" in the holistic sense. Did Jones ever do that?

When Jones said our salvation lies in Jesus being like us - not a particle of difference - was he talking ONLY about His physical nature? When EGW said that Christ's "humanity" is everything to us, was she talking ONLY about His physical nature?

I'd be surprised if he didn't, as this is a normal meaning of "nature." For example, it's very likely that Jones spoke of one's nature being transformed, which couldn't be referring to heredity.



When Jones spoke, he distinguished between the mind and the flesh. He explained that Christ's mind was different than ours, but not His flesh, which was identical to ours.

In Ellen White's statement, that Christ's humanity is everything to us, from the context, it looks to me like she is speaking of the same thing Prescott was. The logic is the same, and the language very similar, and the time period is shortly after Prescott's sermons (I quoted from Prescott a bit earlier in this thread, to get an idea of what Prescott was saying).