Does that describe the experience of the true believer? Does it describe the experience of Christ?

We should recall that in addition to Christ's taking our nature, He was made to be sin for us. He bore our sin his whole life. Both Jones and Waggoner emphasized this. Given that Christ bore both our sin and our nature, it is no surprise that He had to fight the battle that we fight. What Jones and Waggoner (and Prescott) point out is that our victory was made possible by Christ. Prescott says:

Why would you think it's a good idea to base your theology on a private letter to someone whose theology is unknown? It seems to me it would be intuitively obvious that this is a bad idea.



Ok, I understand you're saying you don't understand how something happened, but I'm not understanding what you think happened. Am I correct in guessing that it is your position that God filtered out any tendencies that came from Mary? It sounded from your earlier comments about inheriting character from sinful parents that you think the only bad tendencies can be passed, so if I'm understanding this correctly, then it seems that it would have to follow logically from your position that no tendencies from Mary were passed to Christ. Did I understand your position correctly?



Please refresh my memory. Is it your idea that science doesn't understand genetics, that it is fundamentally wrong in its idea as to how genetic characteristics are passed from parent to child?

Regarding Adam, when Adam sinned, his nature changed, so he passed that to his children. Not only was Adam affected, but all nature was impacted. The nature of predators, such as lions changed. Frogs, snakes (becoming poisonous); probably every living thing changed. Sin changed everything. I don't think this fact proves that science is wrong about genetics.



I understand this to be saying that because of sin man received from Adam a nature which is not naturally in harmony with the law. Do you see this as saying something different than this?



This is a reason I prefer speaking of the flesh, as I think it's less confusing. Most of the time when EGW's contemporaries spoke or wrote on this question, they spoke of Christ's taking sinful flesh, although at times they used "sinful nature" or "fallen nature," instead, always synonymously.

Regarding your agreement with what was quoted, two points in particular. One is the points made in regards to Adam's sin being a representative sin and Christ's righteousness being a representative righteousness. Your in agreement with this concept?

The other point is in regards to Christ's making the way for humanity by combining sinful flesh with divinity, and condemning sin in the flesh. You also agree with this?

Yes indeed! There's much debate in how this should be interpreted. For example, she says that Adam could fall, and He did fall, and that Christ could fall, but not for one moment was their an evil propensity in Him. It sure looks like she's saying, in essence, that "Christ did not fall." Or, in other words, Christ didn't sin. That is:

1.Adam could fall, and He did fall.
2.Christ could fall, but He didn't.

Another fact supporting this idea is she says "not for one moment." If this were some hereditary trait, the "not for one moment" doesn't fit. For example, I wouldn't say, "not for one moment were Christ's eyes blue." They either were blue, or they weren't. "Not for one moment" applies to something which is changeable, not fixed. So saying "not for one moment was their sin in Christ" makes sense, but not "not for one moment was there (some class of) inherited tendencies" does not. A person would simply say, "Christ did not have (some class of) inherited tendencies.

If you look at the Baker letter, it looks like Baker had two errors. One is He presented Christ as not being divine, and two is He presented Christ as having sinned. These look to be the issues EGW was meeting.

That being said, I think it's utter folly to base one's theology on this letter. It's a well established principle that the best way to determine an author's meaning is to consider first books or articles which deal with a certain subject which have been published, and then from there move to secondary sources. Ellen White wrote a whole book on the life of Christ.

In considering secondary sources, there's much better evidence than Baker. For example, S. N. Haskell was working side by side with Ellen White during the Holy Flesh crisis. We know what Haskell's view were on Christ's human nature. Haskell quoted from Ellen White's "The Desire of Ages," and explained the passage he quoted meant that Christ came in fallen humanity, with all the hereditary inclinations that man has, in the Review and Herald. It's inconceivable that Ellen White would have allowed this to go without comment if she didn't agree with it. It just doesn't make any sense that she would be correcting an obscure pastor in Tasmania but not correct leading men of the work such as Prescott, Jones, Waggoner and Haskell on the same question if they were wrong.

Regarding your comments about Mary and tendencies, it sounds like you're saying the same thing I am. I agree that God did not have to filter out anything. All the tendencies which Mary had were passed to Christ.

Tom, I sincerely see no difficulty whatever, nothing obscure, either in the paragraph in question or in any other of this letter.


No! If I believed that only bad tendencies can be passed, how would I explain the following quotes?

God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity. {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

If before the birth of her child she is self-indulgent, if she is selfish, impatient, and exacting, these traits will be reflected in the disposition of the child. Thus many children have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil. But if the mother unswervingly adheres to right principles, if she is temperate and self-denying, if she is kind, gentle, and unselfish, she may give her child these same precious traits of character. {AH 256.1, 2}

It’s my idea that science doesn’t understand how the transmission of moral/spiritual traits occurs.

Many changes in nature were effected through Satan’s ability with genetic engineering. But I’m not speaking about the physical aspect. I’m speaking about the spiritual changes which occurred in Adam, and which were transmitted to his children (propensities of disobedience).

I agree if by “nature” you mean “character,” because the texts say “character.”


I agree that Adam’s sin is the representative sin of all that are in him (excluding them from eternal life), and Christ’s righteousness is the representative righteousness of all that are in Him (regaining for them eternal life).


Yes, bearing in mind that “flesh” does not include “mind.”

Re: post #108496

1. Propensities are changeable.

2. Now you're taking it a step further by saying what Baker taught based on what EGW said. That's conjecture based on a certain interpretation of the text, which we haven't settled is correct.

3. I don't think EGW used a different vocabulary when she wrote privately compared to general works. When she said "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity" I take that to mean that He was different from those of us who have evil propensities at birth. The internal context is sufficient.

4. DA by itself is sufficient to show that our natures are not acceptable to God in its default condition. A transformation is needed. If that's not enough, SC proves it also.

5. Modern postlapsarians seem to think that the Holy Flesh crisis is prevalent today. I don't. I don't even think it was prevalent outside of Muncie. If they will reject the universal application of the Baker letter because Baker was teaching something uncommon today, the same applies much more to the Holy Flesh doctrine, since we have a better idea of what they taught in Muncie. An honest evaluation of that doctrine compared to modern prelapsarian thought will show critical differences.

6. What Mary passed to Jesus were definitely different from what my mother passed to me. So if my salvation is based on His inheritance having "not one particle of difference" to mine, I am lost.

7. My father was a slave. His wasn't.

So true.

And a "character" that is not in harmony with the law, which in PP we are told was in harmony with Satan's character, is what post-Fall Adam had and he bequeathed to his posterity.

My questions to the post-Fall people: Did Jesus have the "righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation" or the one after his fall? At birth, do we have the "righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation" or the one after his fall?

And when I teach, this is my primary question: Today, do you have the "righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation" or the one after his fall?

Thanks for your answers. Brief and to the point.



It's very difficult to interpret the letter because we don't know what Baker's error was. As I'm sure you are aware, there is much debate over how the letter should be interpreted. It seems because of the uncertainty that one has carte blanche to interpret it however one wishes. Given she wrote so much on the subject in works she published, to prefer this private letter over better evidence seems very questionable to me.



Ok, let me try again. Is it your position that Christ could receive "good" tendencies from heredity, but not bad ones? So God filtered (in some unknown way) the inclinations that Christ received from heredity, so He had no inclinations toward anything negative?



Thanks for clarifying this. How do you believe the transmission of moral/spiritual traits occur? I'm especially interested in the genetic aspect here.



Ok. My understanding is that Adam's nature changed, including physically (if that's the right term; his genetic makeup is what I have in mind). Not only did Adam's genetic makeup changed, but the genetic makeup other living creatures changed, such as the lion and other predators. I don't think this was due to genetic engineering. It seems that all nature changed, and killing to eat became a part of the natural cycle. So there were profound genetic changes that instantly occurred in nature as a result of sin, not just in Adam, but in other creatures as well, because of Adam's sin. So the bottom line is that this was a one time event.



No, I meant "nature." I was talking about genetics. I don't believe one passes character genetically. I don't see how this would be possible. Would you explain this please?



Prescott wrote, or said, what Christ did as us without our choice He now wants to do in us with our choice. This was a continuation of the representation concept. Do you agree with this?



Sometime I get confused as to what the disagreement is over. No postlapsarian had "mind" in mind when speaking of Christ's taking our sinful flesh. So do you disagree with the idea that Christ took our sinful flesh, as the term was used by EGW's (SDA) contemporaries?

The comparison is,
1. Adam could fall, but he didn’t have a taint of sin upon him.
2. Christ could fall, but not for a moment was there an evil propensity in Him.

In other words, they were similar. Christ is the second Adam.


Blue eyes do not fit, for they can only be inherited; she had to find an expression which could be applied at the same time to something that can be either inherited or acquired, as is the case of propensities/inclinations/tendencies. You could say, for instance, "not for one moment have I been rich", which means you neither were born rich nor ever became rich. Or you could say, "not for one moment have I had the HIV virus in my body", which means you neither were born with it nor ever acquired it.


What? A Christian minister who believes that Christ wasn’t divine and that He sinned? Are you kidding?
Of course Baker’s problem could only be that he believed Christ had sinful propensities.

Not if their genetic.



There's no other possibility in interpreting her letter than by guessing what errors she was trying to correct. There are differences of opinion regarding this. Some thing she was correcting the error that Christ received the same hereditary inclinations the rest of us have. Others think the error was that Baker was teaching that Christ was not divine or that Christ sinned.



But she didn't write or live in a vacuum. An interpretation which leads us to contradictions in other published works, and to other better evidence is suspect.



Of course! No one suggests otherwise. John 3 "You must be born again" is enough to establish this.



This seems to be a spurious accusation. The Holy Flesh teaching was that because Christ took a nature like Adam before the fall, and the 144,000 must be without sin to meet Christ, their sinful natures must be miraculously changed to be like the nature Adam had before the fall. I know of no one at all who teaches this today. Do you?



I'm not sure what your point is here. My point was that the Holy Flesh movement was a very public affair, and the big guns were fighting against it, in a public way. If they were wrong in what they were saying, it's inconceivable that Ellen White would not have said something about this, especially when she did so with Baker, demonstrating the issue was important to her.



"Inheritance" can be referring to genetics or include other things, depending upon the context. For example, Ellen White says that Christ's nature was "identical" to our own. That's one context. In other contexts His nature is different than ours. Similarly we should read what Jones and others say in context. In context his assertion that there is no difference between our natures and Christ's is as correct as EGW's assertion that it was identical to ours.



This is cryptic.