No, it doesn't. Forget what I think. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the status of the old man in Jesus is identical to the believer. That's what you are saying, isn't it? Do you believe that the status of the old man in Jesus is identical to the believer?

If you do, then here's my question: Of what use is this discussion to the unbeliever, since it does not apply to him?

I don't see what you think was awkward. What I had bolded in the previous post was the comparison Ellen White draws between Christ and Adam. What I bolded in my last post was the contrast Ellen White draws between Adam's posterity and Christ.

The comparisons between Adam and Christ:
Adam was created without any evil propensities ("pure and holy"), but acquired them "through transgressing", while Christ was born without any evil propensities and never acquired them through transgressing - "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

The contrast between Adam's posterity and Christ:
While Adam's posterity "was born with inherent propensities of disobedience," Christ was the only-begotten Son of God, and "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."


As you said, this is Haskel's statement, not Ellen White's statement.


Up till this moment, I haven't seen any heresy holding that Jeus sinned. Neither that one, nor any other. As I said, someone can't be in his right mind to believe that a Savior sins.

It's awkward because it's in the middle of a paragraph, and not correctly identifying what's being contrasted, which I won't list again here because I already did so. The idea that Baker was teaching Adoptionism fits with the Baker letter. It certainly makes a lot more sense than an interpretation that would have her at odds with Haskell.

What should be remembered about what Haskell wrote is that he was working with Ellen White at the time, and his remarks were made publicly, and published in the Review and Herald. Ellen White was certainly aware that Haskell was using "The Desire of Ages" as he was to contradict the Holy Flesh arguments.

In order to hold to your interpretation of the Baker letter, we would have to assume that Ellen White didn't correct Haskell on the same error Baker was making, when in reality EGW would have been much quicker to correct Haskell than Baker, since Haskell was working directly with her, and his work was so public.

I have doubts about spiritual tendencies being transmitted genetically. This can’t be affirmed as if it was a truth. That there are other means of transmission is clear:

If before the birth of her child she is self-indulgent, if she is selfish, impatient, and exacting, these traits will be reflected in the disposition of the child. Thus many children have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil. But if the mother unswervingly adheres to right principles, if she is temperate and self-denying, if she is kind, gentle, and unselfish, she may give her child these same precious traits of character. {AH 256.1, 2}

Anyway, parents transmit good and bad traits of character (whether inherited or acquired) to their children (as you can see from the quote above). And the traits of character with which the child is born constitute the child’s character.


Christ’s obedience in our place, when accepted by us, is justification; our obedience through Christ’s power is sanctification. This is how I understand what he and you are saying. Is this correct?


Sinful tendencies are transmitted to the child’s mind before birth (whether genetically or not), as you can see from AH 256.1, 2, quoted above.

The parents give the stamp of character to their children. Therefore children that are born of these parents inherit from them qualities of mind which are of a low, base order. {RH, September 26, 1899 par. 4}

OK, Mike, I focused on the most important aspect of your post, but I’ll reply to the two other ones.


What I believe is the opposite. My sinful propensities can affect, to a lesser degree, my body and my intellectual ability, but they affect mainly my character. The character is just the thoughts and feelings combined. A propensity to be, for instance, generous or miserly, is nothing but the way my thoughts work - the way I think about life and about my priorities.


I also believe the opposite. Of course she refers not to His physical passions, which were similar to ours, but to sinful passions, or sinful propensities, which, by definition, can be both inherited and cultivated. What is your basis for limiting the word to just cultivated propensities? She of course refers to both.

After he has made this great sacrifice for us, should we deem any sacrifice too great to keep our passions, our inherited and cultivated tendencies to wrong, under control? {YI, May 10, 1900 par. 3}


I think an uncultivated trait is like a file in a DVD, whereas a cultivated trait is like playing the DVD. But if the content of the files is bad, can the DVD be considered good, even if you don’t play it? In the same way, if you have evil traits in your character, can your character be considered good, righteous, holy?

Many of them have inherited evil traits of character... {AH 167.3}

Those children transmit their own perversity of character as an inheritance to their offspring... {CG 231.4}

I agree. That there are other means is a point I've often made.



Yes, and it is clear that Christ had a godly mother, who did not transmit these bad traits to Christ. However, the genetic question is another issue. In terms of inclinations passed genetically, Christ received the same inclinations anyone else does. This was a point made repeatedly by Jones, and Haskell echoed the same thought. I think this is actually where the chief difference of opinion lies. Postlapsarians believe that Christ received the same inclinations we receive genetically, overcame the temptations which arise from that, preparing the way for the rest of humanity to likewise overcome by faith. Prelapsarians believe that there are inclinations passed genetically which Christ did not have, which would be quite a lot, any of the inclinations we have towards something negative.



When he speaks of Christ's preparing the way by uniting flesh of sin with divinity, his idea looks to be that Christ's obedience made our obedience possible, and since we have sinful flesh, Christ also had to have sinful flesh to make that possible.



Non-genetic transference wouldn't create any difference of opinion between pre and postlapsarians. So if you're not asserting here that certain tendencies were not transfered genetically to Christ that are transferred to the rest of us, we're not disagreeing here.

Arnold, earlier you wrote, "I agree that the old man is crucified in the believer. But I do not agree that it is nonexistent." To which I responded, "If you agree with me that the old man is the sinful habits people crucify when they're born again, then, yes, this same crucified status in Jesus would indicate that He is an example of what it means to be saved rather than an example of what it means to be lost. Do you think Jesus was born in the likeness of an unconverted man or in the likeness of a converted man?”

You asked, “Do you believe that the status of the old man in Jesus is identical to the believer?” No, it’s not identical in the sense He first cultivated sinful habits and then crucified them when He was born again. Jesus was born bearing the burden of our sins in His sinful flesh.

How do our cultivated habits become a part of sinful flesh? Well, here’s how I understand the process. Everyone inherits the traits common to mankind. The traits we inherit are neutral in that they do not war against us or clamor for sinful expression. Traits are a faculty of the mind (as opposed to a faculty of the body).

Examples of traits include virtue, honesty, patience, love, faith, perseverance, kindness, goodness, etc. They are qualities or tools that enable us to cultivate character. Sinful habits are perversions of these traits. The “old man” is these perverted habits. The cultivation of sinful habits strengthens the corresponding tendencies in the flesh, which are passed on from generation to generation in the form of fortified tendencies or propensities.

“Sinful flesh” is these tendencies. It is a faculty of the body and works continually from within tempting us to express and experience our innocent and legitimate needs (our appetites and passions) in sinful ways. Sinful flesh cannot actually commit a sin; but it can and does generate and communicate to our conscious mind tempting thoughts and feelings. Every time we indulge the desires of our sinful flesh, we cultivate the corresponding character traits, thus strengthening the propensities of our “old man”.


It very much applies to unbelievers in the sense it inspires them to hope and believe they can be delivered “from this body of death.” They are in bondage to the “old man” and Jesus is offering to set them free. They can begin life anew, a life patterned after the godly example of Jesus. Paul explains it t his way:


PS - Do you think Jesus was born in the likeness of an unconverted man or in the likeness of a converted man?

In the passages I posted above, Ellen makes it clear that character is a quality of the soul and is revealed in the habitual thoughts, feelings, words, and actions. She doesn’t limit it to thoughts and feelings. Character is the result of the repetitious choices we make and the habits we form. Obviously it cannot be inherited. New forms of propensities are created in the process of cultivating character traits. These new propensities, together with the ones inherited at birth, war against unbelievers and tempt them from within to fulfill their needs in sinful ways.

The way our “thoughts work”, as you put it above, depends on many factors, some of which are inherited, others of which are cultivated. Inherited tendencies (i.e. inclinations, propensities) do not constitute character, nor are they a faculty of the mind or the “higher powers” (i.e. reason, intellect, and conscience). Instead, they are a faculty of the body and work through the “lower powers” (i.e. appetites and passions) to tempt believers and unbelievers alike from within to express and experience their innocent and legitimate physical, emotional, and spiritual needs in sinful ways.

Character is the result of the way people repeatedly react and respond to the many temptations bombarding them from within and from without. As certain character traits are confirmed and solidified, the way people will react and respond under similar circumstances is predictable and becomes spontaneous. Such character traits are well nigh impossible to change or alter, which is bad news in cases involving sinful character traits, but it is good news in cases involving sinless character traits.


I discussed the DVD example with my wife and she didn't like it as much as comparing it to inheriting tools and materials (traits) and then building something with them (character). The tools and materials we inherit are neutral – neither sinful nor sinless. They are, however, depleted in comparison to what A&E were created with. But when we cooperate with heaven in the cultivation of character, using the tools and materials we inherited at birth, the resulting righteousness is “godliness and true holiness”, without fault and blameless in the sight of God. Listen:

"The leaven hidden in the flour works invisibly to bring the whole mass under its leavening process; so the leaven of truth works secretly, silently, steadily, to transform the soul. The natural inclinations are softened and subdued. New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. A new standard of character is set up; the life of Christ. The mind is changed; the faculties are roused to action in new lines. Man is not endowed with new faculties, but the faculties he has are sanctified. The conscience is awakened. We are endowed with traits of character that enable us to do service for God. (COL 98)

MM, do you agree with Haskel, when he said "this is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations"? (speaking of Christ's taking our fallen nature; quote's from memory. I quoted it several times on this thread already, so the actually quote can be easily found, but this is idea).

Tom, yes, I believe Jesus took upon Himself the same fallen human inclinations we inherit at birth. And, by cooperating with heavenly agencies, He was able to use His fallen human faculties of mind and body to cultivate sinless character traits. The same experience is available to all who imitate His example.