The following passages describe the "evil tendencies" with which we must contend:

There is earnest warfare before all who would subdue the evil tendencies that strive for the mastery. {FLB 211.5}

No truth does the Bible set forth in clearer light than the peril of even one departure from the right--peril both to the wrongdoer and to all whom his influence shall reach. Example has wonderful power; and when cast on the side of the evil tendencies of our nature, it becomes well-nigh irresistible. {Ed 150.1}

The evil tendencies of mankind are hard to overcome. The battles are tedious. Every soul in the strife knows how severe, how bitter, are these contests. Everything about growth in grace is difficult, because the standard and maxims of the world are constantly interposed between the soul and God's holy standard. The Lord would have us elevated, ennobled, purified, by carrying out the principles underlying His great moral standard, which will test every character in the great day of final reckoning. {FLB 135.3}

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! {CG 405.3}

Some feel their need of the atonement, and with the recognition of this need, and the desire for a change of heart, a struggle begins. To renounce their own will, perhaps their chosen objects of affection or pursuit, requires an effort, at which many hesitate and falter and turn back. Yet this battle must be fought by every heart that is truly converted. We must war against temptations without and within. We must gain the victory over self, crucify the affections and lusts; and then begins the union of the soul with Christ. {5T 47.1}

As the dry and apparently lifeless branch is grafted into the living tree, so may we become living branches of the True Vine. And the fruit which was borne by Christ will be borne by all His followers. After this union is formed, it can be preserved only by continual, earnest, painstaking effort. Christ exercises His power to preserve and guard this sacred tie, and the dependent, helpless sinner must act his part with untiring energy, or Satan by his cruel, cunning power will separate him from Christ. {5T 47.1}

Every Christian must stand on guard continually, watching every avenue of the soul where Satan might find access. He must pray for divine help and at the same time resolutely resist every inclination to sin. By courage, by faith, by persevering toil, he can conquer. But let him remember that to gain the victory Christ must abide in him and he in Christ. {5T 47.2}

Tom,
Ellen White used all these words (propensities, tendencies, inclinations, traits of character, etc.) 99.9% of the times in the negative sense, and evidently as synonymous. This is easy to demonstrate:

Strenuous, flesh-wearing toil may counteract and subdue their evil propensities, and others will not be leavened by their harmful tendencies and traits of character. {TM 403.1}

While we yield ourselves as instruments for the Holy Spirit's working, the grace of God works in us to deny old inclinations, to overcome powerful propensities, and to form new habits. {AG 194.3}

Through the aid of the Holy Spirit we are to resist natural inclinations and tendencies to wrong, and weed out of the life every un-Christlike element. {HP 347.3}


I'm not assuming anything. The dictionary, and the usage, and the common sense tell me that these words are synonymous, and the onus is on you to prove that Ellen White gave them a different meaning.

This is how I would present my argument:

Word A has only a negative sense (ex: doom)
Word B has both a positive and a negative sense (ex: fate)
Word A and word B are synonymous when word B has a negative sense (a fact established by the dictionary).
Word B is preceded by an adjective which gives it a negative sense.
Therefore, word A and word B are synonymous.

No dictionary would say that "propensities" can be used only in the negative sense. But I'm still assuming as true, for the sake of argument, the hypothesis that Ellen White uses it only in the negative sense. Now, what you are proposing is that the negative sense of "propensities" means something different from the negative sense of "tendencies." So please give me the definition of "evil propensities" and the definition of "evil tendencies" and explain to me how and why they are different.

In your original argument you were, tacitly, as the argument itself is invalid.



I didn't say they had a different meaning. I pointed out to you that she didn't use them completely interchangeable, nor that they were completely synonymous. This is what I said. You should switch what I said to something else.

You took issue with this, so I issued you a challenge. The challenge was to find a single instance where she used the word "propensity" in a positive way. This is a simple challenge.

I made my clarification to your remark, and presented evidence as to why. If you wish to take issue with it, simply find a counter-example.



This is a much better argument than the original one, but still flawed. It's close, however. The original one was miles away from being valid, so far off, it surprised me to see it.

Your argument here was OK until the last step. That step should say "therefore the words, in this particular case, were being used synonymously." As you actually stated the last step, it's incorrect.



What I said was that Ellen White did not use the terms completely interchangeably. If I meant to say the words weren't synonyms based on the dictionary, I would have said that.



A hypothesis easily verified.



Where did I propose this?



I'll what for your answer to the above question.

Evil tendencies, but internal or external to Him? Evil tendencies which were in His person or in the person of the "human agencies inspired by Satan" who "buffeted" Him?
The answer to the other questions depends on this answer.

In your post # 108988, you said


You said in your post #109024:


What I understand you to be saying is that they aren't interchangeable when tendencies is used for good things but they are interchangeable when tendencies is used for bad things.

It was on the basis of this argument that I said that since both words were preceded by the adjective "evil," both were being used in a negative sense and so both were synonymous (evidently, in this case). Which is a perfectly logical conclusion, although you have made all that fuss.

But the point is, you said Christ had evil tendencies but not evil propensities. So I understand that you are proposing that "evil tendencies" (negative sense) is not synonymous with "evil propensities." Is that correct?

I'm just stating what I'd read. This is hardly proposing anything.



Maybe you're just being careless in communication. I think what you meant to say is that the phrases "evil tendencies" is the same as "evil propensities." But, instead, you came up with a terribly illogical argument that "propensities" is synonymous with "tendencies."

Here was your argument:



As I've pointed out, this isn't even close to being logically correct. You conclude "therefore they are synonymous." "They" can only refer to the words "tendencies" and "propensities." They may have been used synonymously in a certain instance, but that doesn't mean the words are synonyms.

It's hard to believe you don't understand this.



Please be accurate! I didn't say this!! I said I had *read* EGW as saying the one thing, and not the other.



No. Bad conclusion. You can conclude I meant what I said, which was that I had never read her speaking of "evil propensities" in relation to Christ, but only of "evil tendencies."

Whether or not "tendencies" and "propensities" are synonymous in all their incarnations in the entire English language is really irrelevant to what we've been discussing. The only thing to settle is if "evil tendencies" in the one EGW quote means the same as the "evil propensities" in the other EGW quote. That's the context of the discussion, and really that's all that needs to be settled. Whether or not the words might mean different things in other contexts doesn't matter because we are not in those contexts.

Now, if we were having a grammar discussion, that would be a different story.


If I drive a "red car," and someone said I drive a "red automobile," is that an inaccurate statement? Most of us would say that it is accurate.

Tendency = inclination
Propensity = inclination

That's the basic definition. Yes, there are nuances in the meaning, especially since propensity is a stronger word (stronger inclination) and it has a negative connotation.

But I think the problem here is with the 2nd definition. Many postlapsarians take the position that "propensity" is not simply an inclination, but also denotes (as opposed to connotes) a succumbing to the inclination. IOW, if you have a strong urge to drink alcohol, but you seal your mouth shut so that it is impossible to drink the alcohol, you have a tendency to drink, but have developed no propensity.

IIRC, that was the argument K. Paulson used to shoo away the Baker Letter. That is, he argued that Jesus did not have evil propensities because He never succumbed to the evil inclinations of His sinful nature. (And then there was that sticky point about us being "born with propensities of disobedience" does not necessarily mean that we are born with evil propensities, since Jesus obviously had no evil propensities. But that's for another time.)

I think that's why Tom can argue for the distinction between "evil propensities" and "evil tendencies." For R and me, it is red car vs red automobile. I can hear it now, "But 'automobile' could be taken to include minivans, sports cars......."

Back to my sermon.

In case anyone was wondering, here are some definitions from the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

I said that I hadn't read of Ellen White using "evil propensities" in relation to Christ, but only of "evil tendencies."

I didn't say anything at all! I simply referred to what I had *read*.

The problem of accuracy didn't have to do with "car" vs. "automobile." It had to do with it being claimed I had said something myself when I said was that I had read something that Ellen White wrote. That's a big difference!



I think this is in harmony with what Ellen White believed, and her contemporaries, although instead of "evil inclinations" I would say something like "hereditary inclinations common to man."

Thanks for the dictionary quotes.

"Coming as He did, as a man, to meet and be subject to with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir . . ."

In what sense are men, as humans, 1) to meet all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, and 2) to be subject to all the evil tendencies to which man is heir?

Also, in what sense are men "heir" to them (i.e. evil tendencies)? Like a man Jesus dealt with the same issue described here.

And, what is the relationship between the "evil tendencies" and the "human agencies" mentioned above? Are they one and the same things?