Christ took our sinful nature, which includes whatever tendencies are common to human nature after Adam fell. To use EGW's language, He took "our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature."

Also:



Christ never sinned, but He took our sin upon Him. He "became sin for us" as Paul put it.

So Christ book took our nature and our sin. We have all sinned in our sinful nature, so we have the combination of our nature (the nature of Adam after the fall, or the nature of Adam the transgressor, as EGW puts it) and our sin. Christ also had both of these things, but not in the same way, since He never sinned. He took our sinful nature, and took our sin. Neither was natural to Himself, but He took both.

If you have in mind by "propensity" something which involves the commission of sin, as opposed to something we have by heredity, then Christ took that by becoming sin for us. If you have in mind by "propensity," tendencies which are common to our human nature, then He took that by taking our sinful nature.

From what you say, it seems Jesus had at least everything we have. So in what sense was it that Jesus did not possess "the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man"?

Jesus never sinned; in that sense Jesus did not posses "the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man."

Tim Poirier of the White Estate has looked at Mrs. Whites statements and use of Ellen's marked copy of Melvill's book "Sermons by Henry Melvill" Tim concludes that Ellen agrees with Melvill that the fall had two basic consequences, innocent infirmities and sinful propensities. Infirmities would be things like hunger, pain, weakness, sorrow and death while propensities would be a tendency toward sinning. Before the fall Adam had neither, after he(and us) had both and Christ took on our infirmities BUT not our propensities. When Mrs White speaks on the subject and talks about our same condition she is referring to infirmities but never propensities. Otherwise she would not have made statements like

"When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin....Christ in the wilderness of temptation stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure." R&H july 28, 1874

"He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with the infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are." R&H may 19, 1885

"He had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfecly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin"

"The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satans temptations. Here the test of Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen, but not corrupted" MS 57, 1890

"Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering" SM, book 3 p131

"For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strenth, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity"
Desire of Ages p117

Aaron

What were the results shown in the history of His earthly ancestors? Hunger? Tiredness? Thirst?

No, these are not the results shown in the history of His earthly ancestors, but murder, adultery, prostitution, etc. Christ *accepted" the results of the great law of heredity. He "accepted" them; not was exempt from them.



This was the position of the SDA church, and no other was suggested, until the second half of last century.

It's easy to interpret EGW this way or that, by emphasizing certain portions of her writings, regardless of the position one takes. This is a natural thing to do, regardless of the position being discussed (for example, we see the same thing in other discussions, such as the divinity of Christ, or questions of the judgment, to name two that have been discussed at length on these forums), but the historical situation should be considered.

Ellen White's contemporaries understood her beliefs on the nature of Christ to be that which is quoted above in "Bible Readings for the Home." For example, S. N. Haskell read aloud the following from "The Desire of Ages,"



and then commented



This was during the Holy Flesh movement, of which one of the pillars was that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall:



Seventh-day Adventists, including Ellen White, to meet this false teaching, combated it by pointing out that Christ took not the nature of Adam before the fall, but the nature of Adam after the fall.



Ellen White was at this meeting, and heard Waggoner speak.

It is inconceivable that Ellen White could have secretly held one of these pillars of the Holy Flesh movement, and remained silent while her colleagues argued against it, quoting her works with her knowledge as they did so. Indeed, during this time she wrote:









(Note the contrast here of Christ to Adam, who had "no corrupt principles" whereas Christ "bore the likeness of sinful flesh.")

So we see Ellen White writing her strongest statements in regards to Christ's human nature at the very time her colleagues were working with her to counteract the Holy Flesh doctrine.

You seem to be equating "propensities" with actual sin. Did I understand you right?

BTW, Kevin Paulson has an article that equates propensities with actual sin, though not in every case.

"Propensities" depends on the context. It could imply actual participation in sin, but it might just refer to a tendency passed genetically, depending on the context.

Do you have any use of "propensity" as actual sin in writings contemporary to EGW? The 1828 Webster's defines it as an inclination, not an action.

It's not that the word itself means participation in sin, but that it can imply participation in sin. "Corrupt" is another work which can have this connotation.

When EGW speaks of Christ, she says not to present Him as one with the propensities of sin. This seems to have to do with actually participating in sin, as opposed to simply having our fallen human nature.

EGW speaks of Christ taking the "offending" nature of man, of taking a nature "degraded and defiled" by sin. Here she seems not to be dealing with participation in sin.

She speaks of Adam's not having "corrupt principles," whereas Christ took the "likeness of sinful flesh."

So she uses some very strong statements, which she applies to Christ, but since we know that Christ never sinned, we know these phrases cannot imply participation in sin. Otoh, other phrases should not be applied to Christ, the implication being that these statement do imply participation in sin.

Still speaking about temptations from within:

"The corruption of the world is seeking to steal our senses; all the unholy influences on every side are working to hold us to a low, earthly level--blinding our sensibilities, degrading our desires, enfeebling our conscience, and crippling our religious faculties by urging us to give sway to the lower nature. Corruptions around us find corruptions within. Each works upon the other." {19MR 346.1}