Yes. I've seen an EGW reference that said He had evil tendencies, but not evil propensities. Of course it's talking about His assumed human nature.



Agreed, and for the same reason, which is that Adam, before he fell, had not sinned, and Jesus never did.



If you mean to say that Christ had no evil propensities because He didn't sin, agreed. In regards to "moral faculties" I'd very likely agree with this too, but I'd like to have that defined to know for sure.



Yes, as I understand what you wrote, it makes sense, and agrees with the Baker letter. It look like Baker was teaching that Christ had evil propensities, and that Christ yielded to temptation, given EGW's several admonitions to Baker explaining this wasn't the case.

It also looks like Baker was teaching something funny in regards to Christ's incarnation, based on her comments there, such as the exact time when humanity blended with divinity we don't know. There's quite a few head-scratching comments she makes; head-scratching from the point of view that one wonders what Baker was teaching which would cause her to respond how she did. Adoptionism looks possible.

???
What quote are you speaking about?
It's clear that evil tendencies, evil propensities, and evil traits of character are all one and the same thing.

Because genetic theory is founded on the concept of physical changes being passed on to offspring through the DNA. Characteristics that are not physical (e.g. aspects of mind that are no in the brain, conversion of the spiritual nature, etc.) are beyond the scope of genetics. It would be called pseudo-science by geneticists.

So, if whatever you are talking about does not cause physical changes that are replicated through the process of reproduction, it's not genetic.

Anyway, I doubt that EGW, Haskell, Jones, etc. had genetic theory in mind when they preached. I think people just try to come up with some kind of scientific explanation for whatever reason. But I don't see why, since any "real" scientist will tell you that spiritual matters, though they may be real, are beyond the scope of science.

I need to have a bit of self-control and stop reading these. I have a sermon to prepare for this weekend. See you guys next week. Discuss among yourselves....

I'll see if I can find it. Found it! (I think)

Regarding #109001, I think the statement that "this if fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations" is clear to anybody, whether scientist or not. Surely Haskel was speaking of the law of heredity, the same as Ellen White in DA 49, which is referring to inclinations which are passed genetically. I don't understand where there is ground for confusion here.

The more reasonable interpretation of this passage is that the evil tendencies are external to Christ in the Satan-inspired people who will oppose, buffet and oppress Him. The meaning would be similar to that of the passage below:

And now, thousands of years later, the fulness of time came for the infinite sacrifice to be made. Divinity was to be communicated to humanity through a divine-human Saviour. The great Life-giver was to purchase the whole world by giving his own life as a ransom. Christ came, but not in the brightness of his divine glory. He laid aside his royal robe and kingly crown, clothed his divinity with humanity, and came to live upon the earth as a man among men. ... He came to meet humanity in its most sinful and corrupt form. Thus divine love was manifested toward erring mortals. {RH, September 13, 1906 par. 4, 5}

Propensities, inclinations, tendencies and traits of character are all synonyms.

Strenuous, flesh-wearing toil may counteract and subdue their evil propensities, and others will not be leavened by their harmful tendencies and traits of character. {TM 403.1}

The question is asked, Why then are all not drawn to Christ?--It is because they will not come; because they do not choose to die to self; because they wish, as did Judas, to retain their own individuality, their own natural and cultivated traits of character. Altho they are given every opportunity, every privilege, yet they will not give up those tendencies which, if not cut away from the character, will separate them from Christ. If, continuing to cherish these traits of character, they were admitted to heaven, they would cause a second rebellion. {ST, July 8, 1897 par. 7}

Each soul inherits certain un-Christlike traits of character. It is the grand and noble work of a lifetime to keep under control these tendencies to wrong. It is the little things that cross our path that are likely to cause us to lose our power of self-control. {HP 231.2}

Every day hereditary tendencies to wrong will strive for the mastery. Every day you are to war against your objectionable traits of character, until there are left in you none of those things which need to be separated from you. {6MR 84.3}

No, it's not the only reasonable interpretation. There's a better, easier one, which doesn't necessitate striking out words.

She used the word "evil" here in the sense of "sinful," and these tendencies are the same genetic tendencies which we all have. This would fit with her other statements about Christ's taking our nature and following the law of heredity. It also agrees with Haskell's understanding of her writings, that Christ took fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations.

Note the phrase says "to which man is heir," which is speaking of heredity.

Something to bear in mind is that it's extremely unlikely that Haskell was incorrect in his assertion that the DA passage did not mean that Christ took fallen humanity with all its inclinations in the mind of Ellen White. This is because it virtually impossible that Ellen White would not have nipped this misunderstanding in the bud, had their been one. She was working with Haskell on the Holy Flesh issue at the time, and was against meeting error with unsound arguments. Nor is the idea credible that she would knowingly allow a prominent worker to so crudely misrepresent her.

Tom,
1- I didn't say "the only reasonable," but "the more reasonable."

2- "to with" does not make any sense at all. Once she was adding words to the passage, she evidently forgot to cross out the word "with."

3- If she was saying that Christ had evil tendencies, she would be contradicting herself, for she said He didn't have evil propensities. "Tendencies" and "propensities" are evidently synonyms.

4- I responded to the point about Haskell & others in my post #108862.

1. Sorry about the misquote.
2. Or she could have forgotten a comma.
3. Tendencies is neutral (can be used for either good or bad things) but propensities isn't (at least by EGW; only for bad things), so these terms are not completely interchangeable.
4. Here's the Haskell response:



I think you, and others here, are really missing the import of what happened with Haskell. It's not simply that Haskell made a wrong comment on some unimportant issue, like you're mentioning with Underwood here. This is really an inadequate response, as

1.Degrees of inspiration is a mote in importance compared to the beam of the humanity of Christ, a subject which she described as "everything to us." Jones, whom she endorsed, said our salvation consisted in the very thing. Prescott, whom she also endorsed, on this specific subject, made similar comments (in the specific sermon EGW endorsed).

So, sure, she could choose not to publicly comment on an insignificant issue like the one you're discussing, but this is hardly an explanation as to why she wouldn't comment about errors relating to Christ's humanity.

2.This isn't taking into account the she was working with Haskell on the time in regards to this issue. Haskell was in regular correspondence with her, on this very topic. She had ample opportunity to correct him privately.

3.This isn't taking into account her attitude towards using unsound arguments. She counseled that our arguments should be sound, not leaving our opponents anything to find fault with.

4.This isn't taking into account that, in addition to Haskell, Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott were all working publicly for months along the same lines, in our most visible published works, and most public venues. It wasn't an isolated incident, but the same supposedly wrong idea, being used as a spearhead to meet a heresy, and used over and over and over again.

5.This isn't taking into account that Haskell was not simply offering an opinion of his own, but was publicly stating what *Ellen White's* thinking was. It's hard to imagine her not keeping silent on so vital a subject when words would be being put in her mouth.