I would agree with that statement. But given the two premises we can actually make the stronger statement that "hereditary tendencies" CANNOT include "evil propensities."

I think I will have to stop there for now until my next sermon outline is done.

It sounds like we're in agreement, which would be cool. An evil propensity is not and cannot be a hereditary inclination. This is what we're saying, right?

???

"Because of sin, his [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience." {13MR 18.1}

So, as you see it, propensities of disobedience are not evil (or sinful)?

This private letter says that Adam's posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. Was Christ Adam's posterity?

That's what we're saying. And e are in agreement as far as the logic of the argument is concerned. The argument is logically valid - if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. That is a step in the right direction.

However, I question the universal application of the 1st premise. Did Jesus receive ALL hereditary inclinations that the rest of us receive (at least some of us inherit some of them)? As R pointed out, Adam's posterity inherit propensities of disobedience. Some of us inherit corrupted blood and vitiated appetites. Some of us inherit peevishness. Some of us inherit almost unconquerable tendencies to evil. If Jesus inherited every possible hereditary inclination available to humanity, it would have been pretty nasty.

Then the question presents itself: Where would He get such an inheritance, from His holy mother Mary, or His holy Father God?

I believe that the hereditary inclinations that Jesus may have received are limited to the realm of the physical nature.


Was Haskell talking about only His physical nature, or was he including Christ's mind/spiritual/moral nature?

Going back to the quote he was commenting upon:
In this statement, when EGW said "nature" was she talking about only flesh?

Haskell understood her to be speaking of fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. It's speaking of tendencies which are passed genetically. Clearly it can't be referring to non-genetic hereditary as Christ had holy parents, so this wouldn't apply.

I think the following is a clear passage which discusses this principle:



This is speaking of hereditary inclinations (i.e., genetic ones). Notice she says "what the results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." Who were these ancestors? People like Rahab the prostitute, David, Solomon, and many worse than these. What was their history? Every sort of vice one can think of. This was Christ's heredity, which, like "every child of Adam" he accepted the working of this law. Why? To share our temptations and sorrows, and give us an example of how to overcome in our fallen nature.

Is prostitution, murder, or whatever other sin Christ's ancestors may have done, passed on genetically? When one sins, is his genetic makeup changed in a way that is passed on to his children?

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

Because of sin, his [Adam’s] 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. ...
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}

By the way, you did not answer the question. Are propensities of disobedience evil (sinful) or not?

It looks like she's making the same point in this letter that she made elsewhere, and that her contemporaries made all the time. Christ, as the second Adam, took over where the first Adam failed, but did so in fallen nature, like ours. It's really difficult to see why someone would try to form a new theology out of a private letter.

You keep breaking the letter off at an awkward spot, leaving out critical information. This has already been pointed out. The paragraph doesn't start with "Because of sin, Adam's posterity ..."



Not only is a theology based on a private letter, but it's done so by breaking up a paragraph in its middle.

Here we see:

The first Adam was created a pure and sinless being.
He could fall, and did fall through transgression.

Jesus Christ 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 ...

Again, what most logically follows where the ellipses are? "but He didn't."

A little while later we read:



and again:



In the quote above, where the ellipses are, she said, "but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

Let's take stock:

1.He is any way yielded to corruption.
2.His faith in His Father’s goodness, mercy, and love did not waver for one moment.
3.but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.


This sure doesn't look like a genetic argument! The emphasis is that Christ did not yield, He did not waver. The "not for one moment" can't be referring to genes; that doesn't make sense. We wouldn't say, "not for one moment were His eyes blue" nor "not for one moment was He left-handed."

It looks like Baker's theory regarding Christ's having evil propensities was predicated on Christ's having yielded, having wavered. By the way, this is reminiscent of what Waggoner said in 1888:



It seems exceedingly more likely that Ellen White was saying the same thing she always said, using the same argument she and her contemporaries had used countless times, as opposed to embarking upon a new path, secretly blazing a new theology.



You're equating "sinful" with "evil," which, in this context, is incorrect. Christ had sinful flesh. Should we call this "evil flesh"? Neither Ellen White nor her contemporaries said this, AFAIR. Similarly, neither she nor her contemporaries said Christ took and evil nature. So let's be careful that we're accurate with the terms we use.

So if you're asking if they're "evil," I would say no. If you're asking if they're sinful, if you mean in the sense that Christ had sinful flesh, or took a sinful nature, that would be fine. Haskel interpreting Ellen White as saying that Christ took fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations, which I think is the same thing Ellen White is saying here as well.

I think this whole idea of trying to form a theology from a private letter, where we don't know the circumstances behind it, is sheer folly, and part of the reason for the wise counsel that we look to what was published.

As Haskell put it in interpreting Ellen White from "The Desire of Ages," Christ assumed fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations. This looks to be Ellen White's point here. Christ accepted the law of heredity, with all its inclinations, inclinations which were manifest in His ancestors.

Sins cannot be passed genetically, but inclinations can be. We all know what these inclinations are like, as we're all tempted by them. The results of yielding to these temptations is shown in the history of Christ's ancestors. Christ never yielded to the temptations which come from hereditary inclinations. He shared in our heredity, being tempted as we are tempted, but never yielded.