But are the propensities of disobedience in the physical, intellectual or spiritual/moral aspect of our nature?

Also, what does Ellen White mean when she says that Christ "is a brother in our infirmities, but not possessing like passions. As the sinless One, his nature recoiled from evil" {ST, August 7, 1879 par. 18}?

M: Sin is not inherited; instead, it is cultivated.

R: Ellen White says that Seth "inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin" {1SP 60.2}.

A: Did Jesus have an "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character)?

M: No! And neither do believers who are abiding in Jesus, as it is written -

Romans
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Ephesians
4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

True, but this insight does not mean we inherit the sinful characters our parents cultivated. Character is not inherited.

Rosangela, is it your view that Christ inherited different tendencies than we inherit? Christ inherited only good or righteous tendencies (if "inherit" is the right word) which I suppose would only have been from the non-Mary part of His DNA?

So if they develop a righteous character, we cannot inherit that, but if they develop a sinful character, we can inherit that? Regardless of the character our parents develop, we still inherit a sinful character from them?

If this is the case, it doesn't sound like we're inheriting character from them at all; we're inheriting something else, like tendencies.

Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome. Made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," he lived a sinless life. Now by his divinity he lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by his humanity he reaches us.

This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness. (RH 10/2/00)

Adam failed in his place, and by the offence of one many were made sinners. Jesus Christ gave Himself, not only for us, but to us, uniting Himself to the family, in order that He might take the place of the first Adam, and as head of the family win back what was lost by the first Adam. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is a representative righteousness, just as the sin of Adam was a representative sin, and Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, gathered to Himself the whole family.

But since the first Adam took his place, there has been a change, and humanity is sinful humanity. The power of righteousness has been lost. To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. He became, not a man, but He became flesh; He became human, and gathered all humanity unto Himself, embraced it in His own infinite mind, and stood as the representative of the whole human family.

Adam was tempted at the very first on the question of appetite. Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrous glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:11. He has come into the family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. Jesus Christ made the connection between God and man, that the divine spirit might rest upon humanity. He made the way for humanity.

1.a.I think it's a mistake to rely on the Baker letter at all. Really, that's a very poor way to approach the issue.
b.I think you've misinterpreted her meaning in the Baker letter.

2.I'm not understanding what you think happened with Christ. Are you thinking that Christ received only tendencies to good things? It sounds like you are saying, "yes," although you didn't explicitly say so. Assuming so, how do you think this happened? Did God filter out any tendencies that would come from Mary? Or is it possible that some tendencies could come from Mary which God allowed, and only filtered out some tendencies? How would it work that Christ didn't get the inherited tendencies that the rest of us get?

3.I'm not understanding your apparent idea that we can inherit character from our parents. This isn't how genetics works. For example, if learn to play the clarinet, I can't pass that ability to my children genetically. This applies to characteristics I've developed, such as being generous or miserly, kind or mean, and such like. Do you believe that science is wrong in how genetics works, or have I misunderstood you here?

4.I saw the statement you provided, but they don't appear to me to be dealing with the issue.

5. Do you agree with the following?

1.a.I think it's a mistake to rely on the Baker letter at all. Really, that's a very poor way to approach the issue.
b.I think you've misinterpreted her meaning in the Baker letter.

We simply don't know.

The mind becomes more and more infatuated, and the power to overcome temptation is destroyed. The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family. {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}

Arnold, I am reposting the following post for your convenience:


Do you agree?