PS - I believe the "evil tendencies" to which we are "heir" is referring to hereditary tendencies (propensities, inclinations). Jesus inherited them like we do.

Mike, this is how I understand the passage:

Coming as He did, as a man, to meet and be subject to hatred, scorn, envy, malignity, etc. (all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, working in every conceivable manner to destroy His faith), He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan.

If EGW was referring to evil tendencies in Christ, she would be contradicting what she wrote in the Baker letter.

(I changed "Christ" to "Christ's flesh," for accuracy).

One could just as well argue that your interpretation of the Baker letter is wrong because it contradicts this letter.

No, because the statement in the Baker letter is very clear. Besides, Ellen White expressed the same concept on other occasions:

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 statement in the Baker letter is not very clear. It was probably clear to Baker, but everybody else argues about what it means. If it were very clear, people would agree as to what it meant.

Regarding the 16MR statement, this isn't dealing with Christ's hereditary inclinations. If Christ yielded to Satan's temptations and degraded His humanity, then He would possess the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man, which come to man as a result of so yielding. But Christ never yielded. Therefore He didn't possess the same sinful, corrupt propensities which come as a result of so yielding.

However, Christ did accept the workings of the great law of heredity, which is, as Haskell put it, "fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations."

No, only postlapsarians argue about what it means, because they don't feel it can mean what it says. Yet it says clearly that Christ had no propensities of sin, although Adam's posterity was born with propensities of disobedience (which, of course, is the same thing).

About 16MR, Ellen White is saying that 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} IOW, His liability to yield to temptation did not mean He possessed sinful propensities.

Again:

Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering.--Ms 94, 1893, pp. 1-3. {6MR 112.2}

We possess a sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty at birth - we are born disloyal to God, for we are born with "propensities of disobedience," with a "disinclination to truth and virtue."

I like how you explained this passage. I think I agree with you.


True. But she makes it very clear that there were no evil propensities "in Christ", that is, they were not a part of His divine nature or a part of the character traits He cultivated as a man. However, she also makes it very clear that Jesus took or inherited sinful flesh, which is an aspect of human nature that is full of evil propensities.

If "only" postlapsarians were arguing about this, there wouldn't be anyone to argue with, would there? They'd simply agree with each other.



It's possible to read it in this way, if you:

1.Break the paragraph in the middle, and don't pay any attention to what she was writing earlier in the paragraph.

2.Don't consider the rest of the letter, to see what it's emphasizing. (For example, why does she emphasize repeatedly that Christ did not sin, or speak of its not being important to understand when divinity blended with humanity?)

3.Forget that Ellen White wrote other things about the subject, and ignore her advice when considering a subject to take into account other things she had written about it.

4.Hide one's head in the sand in regards to the historic context of what was going on in the church as a whole at the time.



Since He never sinned, He never degraded His humanity. However, He accepted the working of the great law of heredity, like every other child of Adam. In Christ were united the nature of God and Adam the transgressor. He took the offending nature of man, a nature degraded and defiled by sin; our sinful nature.

Regarding Christ's not having sinful propensities, in the Baker letter she spoke of the importance of not giving the wrong impression, and impression which would imply that Christ had yielded to corruption. Given that she elsewhere emphasized that Christ accepted the law of heredity, like every child of Adam, it cannot be that she's doing an about-face here. The reason not to say that Christ had evil propensities is because this would create a wrong impression in regards to what Christ *did* (e.g., "yield").

I am in full agreement with her counsel. I never present Christ as one with propensities. I don't say Christ had propensities of any sort, or even tendencies. I don't say Christ had a sinful nature. What I say is what she said, that He took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature, that He accepted the working of the law of heredity like every child of Adam, and so on.




But He did take the same sinful, fallen nature we have, for without this He could not have entered into our sorrows and temptations, nor have been an example for us.



Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature. Christ took the same sinful nature we have. Words could not communicate this more clearly than Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature.

Now we don't have a sinless nature upon which to take a sinful nature. That's what's different. You're trying to make the sinful nature which Christ took different than ours, but her language won't allow for this. Again, she writes that in Christ are united the nature of God and the nature of Adam the transgressor; that Christ, like every child of Adam *accepted* the working of the great law of heredity, the results of which are shown in the history of His ancestors. What are these results? Anyone studying the lives of His ancestors knows what these results are.

Haskell, working with Ellen White regarding the Holy Flesh movement, was in close correspondence with her. He read from "The Desire of Ages" in public, and explained Ellen White's meaning: "This is fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations." This is the argument that they used to meed the Holy Flesh people.

Given:

a.Her ideas that one should meet the opposition with sound arguments.
b.This argument was continued for many months, in the most public way.
c.She was aware of what Jones, Prescott, Haskell, and Waggoner were writing and saying.
d.She was endorsing their work (including a sermon which was on the specific topic of Christ's taking our fallen nature)

to entertain the idea that Ellen White secretly had a different point of view, and this point of view was communicated in a private letter to an obscure individual, of whom we know nothing, while she kept quiet despite the above is sheer folly.

And it’s possible to read it in the way you do, if you:
1. Claim that Baker was teaching the absurd idea that Christ sinned, something not even the worst heretics have ever taught.

2. Don’t consider the rest of the letter, to see what it’s emphasizing. For example, why does she emphasize that Adam’s posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience? Why did she use the same word “propensities” for inherited inclinations, if she meant “propensities” in the case of Christ as something not inherited?

3. Claim that “propensities of sin” are different from “propensities of disobedience.”

4. Overlook entirely the fact that the great issue Ellen White was trying to clarify at the time was Christ’s capability of being tempted – not the issue of prelapsarianism/postlapsarianism.


Our sinful nature involves our mind, our will, our character – our spiritual nature, and yes, the sinful nature which Christ took was different from ours, because these aspects were all under the control of His sinless nature.

Here's the section of the Baker letter we're dealing with:





Let's take a look at the numbered points she made:

1.These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God.
2.Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds, that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.
3.He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing.
4.It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin.
5.But let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.
6.The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know.
7.The first Adam fell: the second Adam held fast to God and His word under the most trying circumstances, and His faith in His Father’s goodness, mercy, and love did not waver for one moment.
8.Not one occasion has been given in response to His manifold temptations.
9.Not once did Christ step on Satan’s ground, to give him any advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances.

She says nothing about Christ's heredity being different than ours, about His assumed nature being different than ours. Her principle emphasis is on Christ's not having sinned, which she emphasizes in points 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9. The other points, 1, 3, 5 and 6, emphasize Christ's divinity. This emphasis is entirely in harmony with countering the principles of Adoptionism.



Your suggested interpretation doesn't fit in the light of the historical reality, nor with what she wrote elsewhere. This is the principle weakness of your suggested interpretation. It's very narrow in scope, based on cherry-picking a few sentences here and there, rather than taking a broad view which encompasses her overall philosophy, her endorsements of those she was working with, what her colleagues understood her to be saying, and what she wrote in her published works dealing specifically on the life of Christ written for the public, such as "The Desire of Ages."



This doesn't even make sense. What aspects? The aspects you are referring to must be "our mind, our will, our character, our spiritual nature." You say the sinful nature which Christ took was different than our because these aspects were kept under the control of His sinless nature. So you're saying that A is different than A because A was kept under the control of B, where A is "these aspects" (itemized above) and B is "His sinful nature."

It should be easy to see this is incorrect. Just because "these aspects" are kept under the control of "His sinful nature" does not make "these aspects" different.

Setting that aside a moment, when she writes that Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature, you understand this to mean, "Christ took upon His own sinless nature, our sinful nature, except it wasn't really ours, but different than ours"?

What does this mean?



Or this?



How can Christ, like every child of Adam, accepted the workings of the great law of heredity, mean that Christ, unlike every child of Adam, inherited a nature different than every other child of Adam? Your interpretation of the Baker letter would have her saying something diametrically opposed to what she wrote here.