HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,637
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Rick H 21
kland 7
Daryl 2
May
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Member Spotlight
Rick H
Rick H
Florida, USA
Posts: 3,127
Joined: January 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
6 registered members (dedication, TheophilusOne, Karen Y, Daryl, 2 invisible), 3,392 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 18 19
Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? #158804
11/28/13 07:17 AM
11/28/13 07:17 AM
APL  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
Originally Posted By: ATJ
But that he can manifest himself in flesh laden with sin and with all the tendencies of sin, such as ours is—that is a mystery.

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
This is not a mystery - this is a mistake. 

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. ... He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. {5BC 1128.4}

Jones says exactly the opposite of what Ellen White says. Yet people perfer uninspired words over inspired words.


Originally Posted By: APL
Actually Rosangela, AT Jones was quite in line with what EGW wrote. Perhaps you should consider some of the following, particularly note the first quote which you will not find on the EGW CDROM, but hopefully it will be in the full release of all of EGW's writing in 2015.

"Coming as He did, as a man, to meet and be subjected to, with 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." Letter K-303, 1903, quoted in Adventist Review 17 February 1994

"Though He had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield to temptation to do one single act which was not pure and elevating and ennobling." 
{HP 155.7} 

"He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." 
{RH, February 10, 1885 par. 7} 

"Even doubts assailed the dying Son of God." 
{2T 209.3}

"He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own." 
{ST, April 9, 1896 par. 6} 

"The Son of God in His humanity wrestled with the very same fierce, apparently overwhelming temptations that assail men–temptations to indulgence of appetite, to presumptuous venturing where God has not led them, and to the worship of the god of this world, to sacrifice an eternity of bliss for the fascinating pleasures of this life." 
{1SM 95.3} 

"He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart." 
{5T 177.2} 

He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity, what are our wants, and where lies the strength of our temptations; for He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 
Hebrews 4:15{MH 71.5} 

In Gethsemane: Christ's agony did not cease, but His depression and discouragement left Him. 
{DA 694.2} 

"Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature..." 
{RH, July 17, 1900 par. 8} 

He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. He breathed the very air man must breathe. He trod our earth as man. He had reason, conscience, memory, will, and affections of the human soul which was united with His divine nature. 
{16MR 181.4} 

The higher attributes of His being it is our privilege to have, if we will, through the provisions He has made, appropriate these blessings and diligently cultivate the good in the place of the evil. We have reason, conscience, memory, will, affections--all the attributes a human being can possess. Through the provision made when God and the Son of God made a covenant to rescue man from the bondage of Satan, every facility was provided that human nature should come into union with His divine nature. In such a nature was our Lord tempted. He could have yielded to Satan's lying suggestions as did Adam, but we should adore and glorify the Lamb of God that He did not in a single point yield one jot or one tittle. 
{3SM 130.2} 

He put forth his strongest efforts to overcome Christ on the point of appetite at a time when he was enduring the keenest pangs of hunger. The victory gained was designed, not only to set an example to those who have fallen under the power of appetite, but to qualify the Redeemer for his special work of reaching to the very depths of human woe. By experiencing in himself the strength of Satan's temptation, and of human sufferings and infirmities, he would know how to succor those who should put forth efforts to help themselves. 
{RH, March 18, 1875 par. 9}


Originally Posted By: Weiland
Is the “Baker Letter” Clear?

1. Why did Ellen White write Letter 8, 1895 to Elder Baker of New Zealand? Did she intend to discredit Jones’s and Waggoner’s view of the humanity of Christ (5BC 1128, 1129)?

(a) The letter is not addressed to Jones or Waggoner, nor was it sent to them.

(b) It does not mention Jones’s and Waggoner’s views by name or allude to them.

(c) It does not condemn their views even remotely, only Baker’s distortions of their views.

(d) Had she intended to oppose Jones and Waggoner in their teachings of the nature of Christ, she knew well how to write letters to 
them. The idea of her attempting to cut them down obliquely via Baker in Tasmania as a beating-around-the-bush kind of rebuke is out of character to anyone who knows Ellen White’s forthright openness.

(e) No one knows (to date) for sure what Baker was teaching that elicited this letter. He, not Jones and Waggoner, was the one teaching or in danger of teaching wrong ideas. He may have been tempted to lapse into an extreme manner of presenting the truth of Christ’s humanity. Inasmuch as Ellen White does not condemn Baker or urge him to leave the ministry but in fact encourages him to clarify his teaching, it is possible that he was overreacting to criticism of the 1888 message and in his youth or inexperience was in danger of muddying the waters by imprecise expressions. It is interesting that she made no move to publish this letter or even to incorporate portions of it in volumes of the 
Testimonies at the time. If Ellen White had felt that Jones’s and Waggoner’s Christology was faulty or dangerous, she would not have hesitated to publish her letter to Baker in the messages that comprise our volumes of theTestimonies for the Church.

2. If Christ took the sinful nature of man after the Fall, would He he “a man with the propensities of sin” that the Baker letter says we must not present Him as having (5BC 1128)?

In Ellen White’s own context, her use of the term “propensities of sin” means a 
yielding to temptation, a harboring of an evil purpose, that would be the compulsive result of a previous involvement in an act, word, or thought of sin. She did not teach that we incur guilt genetically.

Jones and Waggoner never implied that Christ had “evil propensities.” Ellen White defines her own terms. We cannot inject into her use of these words our own misconceptions. She said “
not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” This language is meaningless unless the phrase “not for one moment” is understood as implying the exercise of personal choice from moment to moment. Such an expression doesn’t make sense if it refers to genetic inheritance. Thus an “evil propensity” is understood as sinful character involving personal choice. In the same letter, her context makes her meaning clear: “Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption restedupon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.”

Elsewhere she states that He was tempted by the inclination to disobedience to His Father’s will, but never 
yielded to it (cf. 7BC 930). In her own use of the term,”an evil propensity” would have been a “passion,” a display of selfishness, a yielding to self, anindulgence of disobedience.

Here is a succinct example of Ellen White’s use of the word “propensities”: “Self-indulgence, self-pleasing, pride, and extravagance must be renounced. We cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities” (R&H, May 16, 1893). When Paul says,”Christ did not please Himself” (
Romans 15:3), it is clear that He did not have these “propensities.”

One can quite easily discover Ellen White’s idea of “propensities” by consulting the 
Index, vol. 2, pages 2157 and 2158 under “Propensity.” Every statement cited can be reasonably understood as consistent with the idea that an “evil” or “sinful propensity” is an indulged lustcreated by a previous environmental involvement in acts of sin, strengthened by repetition. An alcoholic has a propensity for alcohol because he has used it previously.”Not for one moment was there in [Christ] an evil propensity”—this does not mean He did not “take” our fallen, sinful nature, because those who have the faith of Jesus (within mortal, sinful flesh) “need not retainone sinful propensity.” God’s grace “works in us … to overcome powerful propensities” (7BC 943; COL 354, emphasis supplied). But even after God’s people “overcome” fully, they will still be in “sinful flesh,” with a “sinful nature,” until glorification.

3. Does the 1888 view transgress Ellen White’s counsel in this letter by giving the “slightest impression … that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption” (5BC 1128, 1129)?

No. In fact, Waggoner anticipated this statement, using almost this exact expression of hers seven years before she wrote it to Baker, emphasizing the sinlessness of Christ:

How was it that Christ could be thus “compassed with infirmity” 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. … His own spotless purity … He retained under the most adverse circumstances. …

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 harbored 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 Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory (
Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 28, 29).

The verbs Waggoner used were synonyms of Ellen White’s of seven years later: she said “rested” and “yielded,” and he said “harbored” and “waver,” in the same syntax of expression. She said in 1895 that “not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity,” and he wrote in 1889 that “not for a moment” did His “Divine power … waver.” It is almost as if Ellen White were advising Baker that if he stuck to Waggoner’s precise 1889 expressions, he would be safe.

4. Does the 1888 view of Christ’s nature make Him “altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be” (5BC 1128, 1129)?

Ellen White’s expression is clear: she does not object to making Christ “human” per se, for she is not a Docetist. The key thought in this expression of hers is “
such an one as ourselves.” Christ was divine as well as “human,” but we are merely “altogether human” and not divine. The context of her statement makes clear that this is her point:

Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the Rock Christ Jesus, 
as God revealed in humanity.

Further, we “ourselves” are sinners and Christ was not a sinner; therefore, He cannot be “made altogether human, 
such an one as ourselves.” This is not to say that since we are sinners by genetic inheritance that Christ was “exempt” from participating in our genetic inheritance as Questions on Doctrine strongly implies (page 383). Neither the Bible nor Ellen White teaches the Augustinian doctrine of “original sin.”

5. How then can we understand the following statement: “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” (5BC 1128, 1129)?

The two key verbs in this expression are: “rested” and “
yielded.” Christ’s righteousness is the result of a “verb” and not a mere “noun.” He always did righteousness; and He could not have done righteousness unless he chose to. Adam was created sinless, and if we were to say he was “righteous” in his sinless state (which it seems Ellen White or the Bible never says he was) we would have to imply by that expression that righteousness was innate in him and it was not by choice that he was “sinless.” But the glory of Christ’s righteousness is that it was by choice that He was sinless, and not by an innate, pre-programmed, automaton “nature.”

He explains the truth, telling us that He had taken upon Himself a natural will that was opposed to His Father’s will, and thus He had the same struggle with “self” that we have: “I do not seek My own will, 
but the will of the Father who sent Me;” “I have come down from heaven,not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 5:30; 6:38).”Christ did not please Himself” (Romans 15:3). Therefore His righteousness was the fruit of a constant struggle to yield His will to His Father’s will; and the terrible extent of that struggle is seen in His agony in Gethsemane and on the cross. Ellen White’s expression indicates that “a taint of corruptionresting upon Christ” would have been equivalent to His “yielding to corruption.” And that would have been sin. And that He never did, or thought, or purposed, or even fantasized.

6. How could Christ have taken upon Himself the sinful nature of man after the fall, and not have had “a taint of sin?

The word “taint” means a touch or flavor indicating the presence of the tainting article. Spoiled milk has the “taint” of spoilage because the spoilage is there. If Christ had “a taint of sin” or permitted it “for one moment” to “rest upon Him,” He would be a sinner and thus 
have brought on Himself “the taint of sin.” Jones’s and Waggoner’s message never presented the slightest “taint” of sin or corruption as “resting upon Christ.” But Christ endured the full tempt-ability that the fallen sons of Adam meet, not only the temptability of the sinless, unfallen Adam in the Garden. The glory of “Christ’s righteousness” is that never “for a moment” did He allow a taint of sin to “rest” upon Himself. The cross is the answer.

7. If Christ was “born without a taint of sin” (Letter 97, 1898), was He not different from us who are “born with inherent propensities of disobedience” (5BC 1128)?

Yes, He was surely different from us, for we are fallen sinners and He was sinless. What was “unlike” between us was His character, His righteousness. What is “like” between us is His nature which He “took,” His genetic heredity and ours. We must not misunderstand what are our “inherent propensities of disobedience,” or how we inherit them. Ellen White is very clear that prenatal influences are a part of our “inheritance.” But perhaps there is a difference between “inherent propensities to disobedience” that a baby might “inherit”

 
genetically through the genes, and those that he would “inherit” environmentally from prenatal influences. We dare not say that sin per se is transmitted in the DNA, or we would have to adopt a version of the Roman Catholic Immaculate Conception.

8. If Christ “was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden” (5BC 1128), does this mean that His nature was like that of the sinless Adam?

Not unless we re-write her words and insert “only” where the comma appears. It is true that Christ took Adam’s place, but it is not true that He redeemed only Adam’s failure. He redeemed ours as well. The use of the word “but” in these statements in 
The Desire of Ages is significant:

Ever since Adam’s sin, the human race had been cut off from direct communion with God. … Now that Jesus had come “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (
Romans 8:3), the Father Himself spoke. He had before communicated with humanity throughChrist; now He communicated with humanity in Christ. [This statement becomes meaningless if one understands that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall.] … Satan had pointed to Adam’s sin as proof that God’s law was unjust, and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam’s failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. … It was not thus with Jesus. … For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth, and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation (pp. 116, 117, emphasis original).

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. He came with such a heredity, … to give us the example of a sinless life (
ibid., p. 49).

Obviously, according to her emphasis, the fallen “heredity” that Christ “accepted” was not mere physical deterioration, but also “moral.” Her point is that in our nature, which is clearly “sinful” it is possible to live “a sinless life,” for He did so as an “example.” “The lowest depths of degradation” are spiritual and moral, 
not merely physical. And it was “man” there that Christ “rescued” with that long “golden chain” let down from heaven, in which there is to be no “broken link.”

In no way does this compromise the perfect sinlessness of Christ It enhances it, and gives us hope. This is the “message of Christ’s righteousness.” Ellen White’s language seems clear: “Christ was to redeem Adam’s failure, … 
but when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. … It was not thus with Jesus.” The great controversy requires that He redeem our failure too!

9. “He [Christ] did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset” (5BC 1128, 1129). Does this suggest that He was born with a different nature than ours, but later in His incarnation, He “humbled Himself” ?

Not necessarily. Christ was born as a human baby and “grew” in knowledge and understanding.”He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (
Hebrews 5:8; see also Luke 2:52). As a baby He could not “understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset”—no baby can. He had to grow into this maturity. The point is that at any moment in this growth process, the Son of God could have refused to suffer further, and He could have excused Himself from further participation with us in temptation. But He “humbled Himself” to suffer “the force of all temptations” to the end.

10. How is Ellen White’s The Desire of Ages related to the 1888 concepts of the nature of Christ?

It is very closely related. She wrote it in the decade after 1888. It contains a number of very clear statements which support the Jones and Waggoner concept (cf. pp. 49, 68-70, 112, 117, 208, 329, 336, 363). Very strong statements also appear in YI June 2, Aug. 4, Sept, 8, Oct 13, 1898; ST June 9, 1898; and Letter 97, 1898.

She seems at that time to have been almost obsessed with the parallels between the history of the Jews and our 1888 history. She speaks of this in a series of articles in the R&H from January to April, 1890:

Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. … I feel like fleeing from the place lest I receive the mold of those who cannot candidly investigate … the evidence of a posi-ton that differs from theirs (Feb. 18).

They [brethren] oppose they know not what, because, unfortunately, they are leavened with the spirit of opposition (Feb. 25).

Brethren, there is light for us. … Light is flashing from the throne of God, and what is this for?—It is that a people may be prepared to stand in the day of God. … As I am writing on the “Life of Christ,” I lift up my heart in prayer to God that light may come to His people. … Every line I trace about the condition of the people in the time of Christ, about their attitude toward the Light of the world, in which I see danger that we shall take the same position, I offer up a prayer to God: “O let not this be the condition of thy people. Forbid that thy people shall make this mistake.” … It is when we meet unbelief in those who should be leaders of the people, that our souls are wounded. This … grieves the Spirit of God (March 4).

For some reason, neither the White Estate nor any official publishing house has ever reprinted Ellen White’s powerful “Bible Student’s Library” booklet of 1894 entitled 
Christ Tempted As We Are. This dates from the same general period as the Baker letter. She clearly supports the 1888 message:

(a) “‘It behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.’”

(b) He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

(c) His temptations were not like Adam’s; “it was not thus with Jesus.” “Alone He was to tread the path of temptation and exercise self-control stronger than hunger, ambition, or death. … Specious reasoning was a temptation to Christ His humanity made it a temptation to Him. … He walked by faith, as we must walk by faith. … One has endured all these temptations before us. … The Christian’s … strongest temptations will come from within. Christ [was] tempted as we are [same page]” (p. 11).

(d) “Every struggle against sin, every effort to conform to the law of God, is Christ working through His appointed agencies upon the human heart”

Ellen White’s mind was not confused on this issue!


Originally Posted By: Ann Walper
Comments on the Baker Letter - Ann Walper

There are no extant documents from W.L.H. Baker. We have historical information on his personal life and his work in the Australasian missionary fields, but evidently he did not do much, if any, writing. He was connected with the publishing and evangelism work, and in teaching, but evidently did not care to write for our publications.

So, how can we claim that he was teaching "adoptionism"? We may not have any documents from his hand, but Ellen White must have heard him preach and/or heard about his teaching while he was working in the Tasmanian missionary field about 1895-1896.

Definition of Adoptionism

Adoptionism is an error in understanding who Christ was. It is more than just a discussion about what nature Christ assumed in the incarnation. It goes beyond that into a deeper heresy. Adoptionism is founded in Nestorianism, which surfaced in Spain during the 8thcentury. It taught that Christ was fully and completely a man, born on this earth without any divine intervention attendant in His conception. He was born as a son of man, not as the Son of God. He was a normal human being with exalted concepts of purity and holiness, and lived an heroic lifestyle in overcoming his "evil propensities." Then, after He showed Himself to be morally in tune with God’s will—the "perfect human being"—He was adopted by God as His son, and thus became "the Son of God." In this capacity, God used this "perfect human being" to work out the necessary interventions to become humanity’s savior—the "perfect sacrifice."

During the first phase of this "Christ’s" earthly existence, he would have been"altogether such an one as ourselves." He would have had the same "propensities of sin" as all of us have. After his adoption, this "Christ" would have been a blending of the divine and human natures as God infused him with His divine nature. The "exact time when humanity was blended with divinity" in this "Christ" was taught, by adoptionism, as being around his 30th year of earthly existence.

From this definition of adoptionism, we can now pick out the things which Mrs. White addressed in her cautions to Elder Baker. Those phrases which are in italics are the very same words which Mrs. White used in her letter. I chose them to emphasize them for clarity in this discussion.

Historical Context of the Baker Letter

We can now turn to an analysis of the content of the letter Mrs. White wrote to Elder Baker. To understand her comments in the "Baker Letter" which was written to both Elder Baker and his wife, we must consider the total historical context of the letter.

The overall tone of the letter to Elder Baker, which was probably written at the end of 1895, was very positive. Mrs. White commended him for his work, encouraged him in his "depression," and in general supported him personally. Then why has there been such a furor about this particular letter from the pen of Mrs. White? What did she say which got the attention of our theologians and which caused the extensive discussions that have continued for some 50 years?

There are only a few sentences from the entire 19 page letter which have come under intense scrutiny and contentious discussion (for the full letter, please see Manuscript Releases; Volume Thirteen, page 13).

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."

"Logical" Conclusions Reached

From this short paragraph, some have selected out the first two sentences as their main rallying point in making a position for their Christological understanding. "Be careful, exceedingly careful" they say, when discussing the nature which Christ assumed in the incarnation. Then they skip down to the next to last sentence and argue that Christ did not "have an evil propensity." From this, using a type of logic, they come to the following conclusions:

Ellen White wrote a letter to Baker in which she cautioned him about how to present before the people, the nature which Christ assumed in His incarnation.

Mrs. White used particular phrases in regard to Christ’s nature which give clues as to what she understood the truth to be concerning Christ’s human nature.

One phrase which must be important and considered carefully is: "evil propensity," which she says Christ did not have "for one moment."

Since man’s nature is "evil" (i.e. "sinful") then Christ must not have had any of the "natural" propensities which fallen mankind has.

If Christ did not have the natural propensities which fallen men have, then He could not have had the same nature that fallen men have.

THEREFORE (the conclusion is made from this logical progression in thought): what Ellen White was telling Baker in her letter to him was that Christ took the UNfallen nature of Adam at His incarnation.

Remember, the letter to Elder Baker was written at the end of 1895 or early 1896. Keeping our focus on the historical context of this letter and Mrs. White’s comments, we find that during that same time period there were extensive articles, sermons, books, and other statements from the pens of persons such as A.T. Jones, W.W. Prescott, S.N. Haskell, J.E. Evans, J.H. Durland, and Ellen White herself which plainly state that Christ, in His incarnation, assumed the nature of Adam after the fall. During this very time, Ellen White was writing Desire of Ages which contains these statements:

"Satan had pointed to Adam's sin as proof that God's law was unjust, and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation." DA p 117.

And: "This was but the beginning of His wonderful condescension. 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 p 49.

From this historical context it is evident that Mrs. White was not attempting to correct Baker’s position that Christ assumed the fallen nature of Adam, otherwise she would also have written letters to the men who were widely promoting this truth around the world in our publications and at the conference sessions which took place at this time (Jones at the 1895 GC session; Prescott at the 1895 Armadale campmeeting). Since the historical context of the letter proves that her comments were NOT concerning the fact that Christ took upon Himself our fallen nature, then what Ellen White was cautioning Baker about must have been some other, more covert and dangerous concept.

What Mrs. White Did Write

Again, to understand what Mrs. White was saying we must let her own record speak for itself—it’s internal context must determine how we comprehend what she was saying to Baker.

The paragraphs dealing with the nature of Christ were intended as a warning.

The warning included, not only Elder Baker, but "every human being" who would speak and write on the nature of Christ (MR 13, page 19).

The warning concerned the doctrine of Christology.

The warning was not limited to Christ’s human nature, but also included His divine nature.

The warning cautioned Elder Baker not to present Christ as one who "was altogether human" or one who was "altogether such an one as ourselves."

The incarnation—combining divine nature with human nature—"is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals." We cannot understand how divinity and humanity were blended into the one Man Christ Jesus.

"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. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the rock, Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity." (Baker Letter).

In essence, her warning to Baker was for him to not place too great a stress on the humanity of Christ at the expense of Christ’s divinity, which was equally as important in the salvation process. Her emphasis was that Christ did not sin, not even once, not even by a thought. We must clarify that there is a major difference in the three "natures" in the discussion about sin.

Clarifying Basic Concepts

Sinless nature = a nature completely without sin in any form, such as Adam had when he came from the Creator’s hand, such as the unfallen angels and God Himself possess.

Sinful nature = the corrupted nature, which is influenced and tempted by Satan to do those things which are contrary to God’s will, but it does NOT have to yield to Satan’s attacks (this is an essential element in the Cleansing of the Sanctuary doctrine).

Sinning nature = the nature which continues to indulge in those things which are contrary to God’s will; this is an active, willful behavior from a character which is in rebellion to God.

From this we see that Christ, in His incarnation, could step down from His "sinless nature" and, in His humanity, assume a "sinful nature" (Philippians 2:5-8). By faith He kept that "sinful nature" from becoming a "sinning nature," proving to the universe that fallen, sinful man COULD keep the law of God. Therefore, Mrs. White could say that "not even by a thought" did Christ consent to sin. "For we have not an 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" (Hebrews 4:15, 16). This is indeed GOOD NEWS for sinners! Christ is our example in all things and has proved that overcoming sin in this life is possible.

This concept on the nature of Christ, which Jones and Waggoner stressed in their sermons and writings, was one of the foundation pillars of the 1888 message. Mrs. White called their message the "most precious message" of "Christ and His righteousness" (Testimonies to Ministers pp 91 and 92). The nature of Christ has become a strong point of contention during the last 50 years’ discussion regarding the 1888 message and it content.

One more point worth clarifying is the phrase "evil propensity." A propensity is "an intense inclination" or "leaning toward" (Webster’s). In and of itself, a propensity is not automatically "bad" or "evil." But once an inclination is "indulged" it becomes much stronger in it’s pull upon us. For example, most people who have never smoked a cigarette have no strong desire to ever smoke. But, persons who have indulged in the smoking habit, find it very hard to avoid using them again. Staying "smoke free" is difficult, and requires a constant battle against the body’s strong desire for the nicotine rush. Habits formed which revolved around the use of cigarettes may continue to haunt the individual for many years—like absentmindedly reaching into their pocket for a cigarette during stressful moments.

Christ came to this earth and took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, with all of its weaknesses, liabilities, and inclinations, but He never developed an "evil propensity" because He never indulged in any sin, not even in His thoughts. He took our fallen equipment and in that defective equipment, He wrought out the perfect performance. He kept every commandment of God, thus proving that mankind CAN be an overcomer and vindicate God’s character against the claims of Satan. Unless Christ took our nature, He could not be our example in "all things."


It would seem that Jones and Waggoner and Ellen White are very much in agreement about the human nature of Christ.


Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: APL] #158805
11/28/13 02:27 PM
11/28/13 02:27 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
In Ellen White’s own context, her use of the term “propensities of sin” means a yielding to temptation, a harboring of an evil purpose, that would be the compulsive result of a previous involvement in an act, word, or thought of sin. She did not teach that we incur guilt genetically.

False.

In this section of the letter she is clearly contrasting Adam’s posterity with Christ:

1- "Because of sin, his [Adam’s] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience.

But

2- Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. ... not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

There is a fundamental difference between Christ and Adam’s posterity, and this is the whole point of the letter.

His birth was a miracle of God... “Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. 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. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing.” {13MR 18, 19}

Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: APL] #158806
11/28/13 02:43 PM
11/28/13 02:43 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
Thus an “evil propensity” is understood as sinful character involving personal choice. In the same letter, her context makes her meaning clear: “Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption restedupon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.”

EGW's emphasis is on Christ’s being without a taint of sin, which means not having (either by inheritance or by choice) inclinations to sin:

“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.”

She is speaking of two distinct things here:
1) a taint of corruption or inclination to corruption from birth. Note the parallel expression in reference to Adam as having been created “without a taint of sin.”
2) the act itself of yielding to corruption.

Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: Rosangela] #158809
11/28/13 03:12 PM
11/28/13 03:12 PM
APL  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
Originally Posted By: rosangela
There is a fundamental difference between Christ and Adam’s posterity, and this is the whole point of the letter.
The letter (Baker letter) is arguing against Baker's view which included adoption. This is a fundamental error of Baker. EGW and the Bible tell us that Christ was just like Adam's posterity, Hebrews 2:16-18 AKJV For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

The difference between Christ and us, is that Christ never yielded.

“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”
The two key verbs in this expression are: “rested” and “
yielded.” Christ’s righteousness is the result of a “verb” and not a mere “noun.” He always did righteousness; and He could not have done righteousness unless he chose to. Adam was created sinless, and if we were to say he was “righteous” in his sinless state (which it seems Ellen White or the Bible never says he was) we would have to imply by that expression that righteousness was innate in him and it was not by choice that he was “sinless.” But the glory of Christ’s righteousness is that it was by choice that He was sinless, and not by an innate, pre-programmed, automaton “nature.”

He explains the truth, telling us that He had taken upon Himself a natural will that was opposed to His Father’s will, and thus He had the same struggle with “self” that we have: “I do not seek My own will, 
but the will of the Father who sent Me;” “I have come down from heaven,not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 5:30; 6:38).”Christ did not please Himself” (Romans 15:3). Therefore His righteousness was the fruit of a constant struggle to yield His will to His Father’s will; and the terrible extent of that struggle is seen in His agony in Gethsemane and on the cross. Ellen White’s expression indicates that “a taint of corruptionresting upon Christ” would have been equivalent to His “yielding to corruption.” And that would have been sin. And that He never did, or thought, or purposed, or even fantasized.


Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: APL] #158810
11/28/13 03:18 PM
11/28/13 03:18 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
APL,
Did Adoptionism teach that Christ yielded to sin?

Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: Rosangela] #158813
11/28/13 03:52 PM
11/28/13 03:52 PM
APL  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
APL,
Did Adoptionism teach that Christ yielded to sin?
This question is addressed in the open post.


Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: APL] #158815
11/28/13 04:12 PM
11/28/13 04:12 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
1. "Took part of the same"
2. "In the likeness of sinful flesh"
3. "Was in all points tempted like as we are"
4. "Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh"
5. "He himself hath suffered being tempted"
6. "Sin that dwelleth in me . . . (that is, in my flesh)"
7. "The motions of sins . . . work in our members [the flesh]"

Jesus was tempted from within in the same way we are. He resisted the clamorings of sinful flesh nature in the same way born again believers do. Precisely how Jesus survived the ages of non-accountability unscathed is a mystery that is left unexplained. Unexplainable mysteries are best left unexplained.

Quote:
The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2}

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. {7ABC 448.2}

Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: Mountain Man] #158821
11/28/13 05:04 PM
11/28/13 05:04 PM
APL  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
MM - I agree with your post. The scripture references are: Hebrews 2:14; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 4:1; Hebrews 2:18; Romans 7:14-25; Romans 7:5, for those that want to look them up.

The only issue I have is the "ages of non-accountability". This is not a Biblical concept that I know of. If you have anything Biblical to support a concept of "ages of non-accountability", I'd be interested in it.


Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: APL] #158822
11/28/13 05:11 PM
11/28/13 05:11 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
Quote:
APL,
Did Adoptionism teach that Christ yielded to sin?

This question is addressed in the open post.

You mean it was wrongly addressed in the open post.

An Ann Walper (whoever that person is) said that, according to Adoptionism, Christ "was a normal human being with exalted concepts of purity and holiness, and lived an heroic lifestyle in overcoming his 'evil propensities.'"

What does she mean by that? That He yielded to sin before overcoming it?

Because Wieland says that Ellen White’s "use of the term 'propensities of sin' means a yielding to temptation."

So, you accept two contradictory views simultaneously.

Either this Ann Walper is saying something Adoptionism never said, that is, that Christ yielded to sin (see below), or she is referring to genetics, contradicting Wieland's view.

Quote:
Wiki
Adoptionism, sometimes called dynamic monarchianism, is a minority Christian belief that Jesus was adopted as God's Son either at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. According to Epiphanius's account of the Ebionites, the group believed that Jesus was chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God.[1]

Re: Did Christ have sinful tendencies? How does EGW use the word propensities? [Re: Mountain Man] #158823
11/28/13 05:23 PM
11/28/13 05:23 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature

Mike, so I understand you believe Christ had carnal lusts, and, therefore, a carnal nature.

Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 18 19

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
The Gospel According To John
by dedication. 05/16/24 02:17 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 05/06/24 12:18 PM
2nd Quarter 2024 The Great Controversy
by dedication. 05/03/24 02:55 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Rick H. 04/26/24 06:05 PM
Nebuchadnezzar Speaks: The Sunday Law
by dedication. 04/22/24 05:15 PM
Nebuchadnezzar Speaks: Part Two
by TruthinTypes. 04/21/24 11:14 PM
Where is the crises with Climate mandates?
by dedication. 04/21/24 09:25 PM
Iran strikes Israel as War Expands
by dedication. 04/21/24 05:07 PM
What Happens at the End.
by Rick H. 04/20/24 11:39 AM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 04/18/24 05:51 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
What Does EGW Say About Ordination?
by kland. 05/17/24 04:47 PM
Who is the AntiChrist? (Identifying Him)
by Rick H. 05/06/24 12:33 PM
Are we seeing a outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
by Rick H. 05/06/24 12:29 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Rick H. 05/06/24 12:27 PM
The Wound Is Healed! The Mark Is Forming!
by kland. 05/06/24 10:32 AM
When Does Satan Impersonate Christ?
by Rick H. 05/03/24 10:09 AM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by dedication. 05/02/24 08:58 PM
The Papacy And The American Election
by Rick H. 04/30/24 09:34 AM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1