Nicely worded, Tom.

No, I'm not leaving out critical information. She is making several comparisons and contrasts at the same time, and this has already been pointed out. In this section 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. ... 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."



She says:

“Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. ... not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.”

Therefore,

Propensities of sin = evil propensities. Correct?

And propensities of sin are sinful propensities. Or do you disagree?

Yes, it is sinful; nevertheless, sinful and sinning are two entirely different realities. The "form and nature" Jesus took upon Himself were sinful as opposed to the sinless form and nature A&E possessed in Eden. Jesus' human faculties of mind and body (i.e. higher and lower powers) were morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually sinful as opposed to the sinless faculties of mind and body A&E possessed in Eden.

Whether the faculties of mind and body are sinful or sinless it matters not so far as cultivating sinless character traits is concerned. Partaking of the divine nature, combining the human and divine natures, enables believers to use their morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually sinful higher and lower powers to cultivate sinless character traits. Which is precisely what Jesus did.

"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan's temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted. {4aSG 115.3}

This question was made in view of Tom's statement that "an evil propensity is not and cannot be a hereditary inclination."

I would also quote the following:

"No longer let any evil influence or propensity, natural or acquired, lead you to subordinate the claims of future, eternal interests to the common affairs of this life." {UL 313.5}

"Natural" here logically means "inherited."

What is the sinfulness of man? It refers to the corruption and contamination that occurs when sinners indulge sin. Listen:

Evil habits and practices are bringing upon men disease of every kind. Let the understanding be convinced by education as to the sinfulness of abusing and degrading the powers that God has given. {2MCP 690.4}

The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. {PP 371.4}

We may find by searching the Word the virtues of obedience in contrast with the sinfulness of disobedience. "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." {RC 132.7}

[The 144,000] are fully conscious of the sinfulness of their lives, they see their weakness and unworthiness; and they are ready to despair. {PK 588.1}

The great trial of Christ in the wilderness on the point of appetite was to leave man an example of self-denial. This long fast was to convict men of the sinfulness of things in which professed Christians indulge. The victory which Christ gained in the wilderness was to show man the sinfulness of the very things in which he takes such pleasure. {SD 141.2}

All influences, propensities, inclinations, tendencies that tempt us to sin are evil and sinful. Nevertheless, having them dwelling within us, "that is, in our flesh", does not corrupt or contaminate us while we are abiding in Jesus. So too, Jesus was not corrupted or contaminated by having them dwelling within His sinful flesh.

Regarding #108903, you're breaking off the comparison at the wrong spot. You should read the entire paragraph. You're not making the right comparison.

If you look at the paragraph as a whole, you can see she is saying that Adam, with an unfallen nature, yielded to temptation, whereas Christ, with a fallen nature, did not. It is evident that Baker was contradicting this idea in regards to what he was teaching relating to evil propensities, because EGW several times emphasized that Christ did not sin. If evil propensities had to do with what Christ inherited genetically, there would have been no need to emphasize that Christ did not sin. She could have said something like, "Although Christ was Adam's posterity, unlike the rest of Adam's posterity, Christ's heredity was different, because He did not inherit tendencies to evil" which would have agreed with what you're suggesting.

But this isn't what she taught. She taught that Christ, like every other child of Adam, accepted the working of the law of heredity. So to take the interpretation you are suggesting not only breaks a paragraph off in the middle, it doesn't make grammatical sense ("not for one moment" doesn't apply to genetic traits), it doesn't match the emphasis on the letter that Christ did not sin, it doesn't agree with she herself taught elsewhere, and it doesn't match the understanding the her contemporaries had of her beliefs, and understand which she was aware of.

So your suggested interpretation is swimming too hard upstream.

Regarding if propensities of sin could mean evil propensities, it seems it could, given how she used it in one spot. However, in another spot, she said that Adam's posterity, which of course includes Christ, had "inherent propensities of disobedience," so in this spot it cannot mean "evil propensities" since elsewhere she said Christ did not have these.

I don't understand why the evidence of a private letter would be preferred over:

1.Her teaching elsewhere in works she had published herself.
2.Direct endorsement of postlapsarian sermon by W. W. Prescott.
3.Ongoing endorsements of Jones and Waggoner, including in the context of their teaching on this subject.
4.The testimony of her contemporaries.

It's like we have say five strains of evidence, four of which are strong, and one of which is weak, and we set aside the four strong ones in favor of the one weak one.

This natural evil influence could have been due to prenatal influences; it needn't have been genetic. We need to keep in mind that Christ, like every other child of Adam, accepted the working of the great law of heredity, so any interpretations we give to her statements elsewhere need to harmonize with this.

i am only jumping in to say that the way roseangela presents it is the way i have understood that statement when i read it.

im not real interested in getting into an argument over how one believes i should read it, tho, thank you very much.

One should be interested in what the truth is, shouldn't one?

If this were all the evidence we had on the subject, that would be one thing. One could make an argument it should be read one way, or another. But it's not. There's a lot of other evidence to consider.

The mere fact that one would so rely on this one private letter is just mind boggling to me. There's a ton of much better evidence to consider.

For example, consider the testimony of her contemporaries and the position of the SDA church during her entire ministry of 60+ years and 40 years after. Does it really make sense to throw away 100 years of history because of a few sentences in a private letter?