Then they must not be obtained by the law of heredity, since Christ accepted the workings of that law.



That's fine, provided these propensities don't come from the law of heredity.



If they aren't transmitted by genes, then that avoids contradicting the DA 49 statement and others. This would make Christ's situation dependent upon having God fearing parents then, right?

And that's what I thought was a silly diversion into grammar. I didn't think R was making a sweeping statement about every EGW usage of "propensities" and "tendencies." Regardless of every other usage by EGW, they were synonymous in the context of the discussion. It was irrelevant, and seemed quite evasive, to bring up other contexts that were not being discussed.

Anyway, here's a post from way back...

Some points to consider:
1) It strikes me as odd that you disagree with striking out words in the sentence in question, since it makes no sense as is. One with such strong opinions on grammatical nuances such as yourself should have immediately noticed it.

2) You again bring up "genetic" concepts, which depend on cellular mutations. Your refusal to accept that sin causes cellular mutations should also lead to your refusal to credit genetics with inherited tendencies.

3) The phrase "to which man is heir" does not necessarily mean heredity in terms if what we receive at birth. An heir is one who receives some sort of inheritance. And many postlapsarians have argued that "inheritance" can happen well after birth; I think you have argued for that in the past. While I think that particular argument is weak in the context of the SOP quotes speaking of our spiritual inheritance from our parents, it is even weaker, IMO, to say that "to which man is heir" in our quote is definitely speaking of heredity, much less genetic heredity.

4) You point out that Haskell and EGW were battling the HF error at the time. Yet, the arguments they used are so often freely applied by postlapsarians to any and every situation re: the human nature of Christ. That's why I said in a previous post that modern postlapsarians seem to think that the HF error is prevalent today. But they fail to consider that the statements made to combat the HF, and strong statements they were, might have been meant to be taken in the context of the HF error, not to be universally applied for the history of mankind.

Here's an example: The error was called "Holy FLESH." When Haskell made statements about was Jesus had, he was probably talking about FLESH. And it is likely that EGW understood that, and agreed with it. But while some are still on that soapbox, I have not seen anyone in my lifetime argue that Jesus had holy FLESH, or that we will have holy FLESH this side of eternity.

But then, when we see statements that contrast our condition at birth with Christ's, which includes more than just FLESH, all these quotes made by Haskell, Jones, etc. to combat Holy FLESH are brought to bear. It is as if postlapsarians thought that people are born as nothing more than a mass of fallen FLESH - no mind, no spirit, no character. And that is one of my big disagreements with the postlapsarian paradigm of what constitutes humanity.


Let's look at that definition of propensity:

Note that:

1) It is a "bent of mind." It's in the mind, not the body.

2) It is "natural or acquired." EGW would say "inherited or cultivated."

3) It is an "inclination" or "natural tendency." There is no mention of what one actually does, despite the claims that EGW meant it that way.

4) Is it a "disposition to any thing good or evil." Like "tendency," it can go either way, though it is usually used in the evil sense.

But that would destroy the assertion that the "great law of heredity" includes the spiritual influence of Christ's evil ancestors. They were murderers, adulterers, idolaters, but that doesn't mean that Jesus was born inclined to be any of these.


Good thing He had a holy mother, and an EXTREMELY holy Father. One feared God, the other was God.

Yes, inherited, but not necessarily through cellular mutations.

Are you suggesting that if you sin, that alters your genes and chromosomes, which you then pass on to your children? Would a person like Christ, who never sinned, if He had had any children, have passed on genes to his children with no tendencies to sin?



What?



Here's what Haskell said (Reading from "The Desire of Ages.)



Do you agree with this?



Who exactly are you disagreeing with? I'm speaking of contemporaries of Ellen White. Do you disagree with Haskell, Jones, Prescott, and Waggoner? Are you characterizing these as postlapsarians? How about Ellen White? Do you characterize her as a postlapsarian?



Sure there is:



Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen. There are things one does.

Following we read:



There are many instances in the Baker dealing with what Christ did.



In the case of Ellen White, it can't go either way. It's always negative.

This wasn't asserted.



Why not? What do you think "the working of the great law of heredity, which is shown in the results of His earthly ancestors" means?

Arnold, you complain a lot about what others say, and ask lots of questions, but don't present your own view. What is your view on the human nature of Christ? Was He genetically different than we are? I take it you don't believe Christ had any negative inclinations. Is this because you don't believe we have any negative inclinations genetically? Or is it because you don't believe Christ had the same genetic inclinations we have?

Do you disagree with what Jones and Waggoner said? With Prescott? If so, with what?

TIA for answering these questions.

Yes, there's a lot of talking past each other.

Post: Jesus was born with our sinful nature.
Pre: But that would mean that He was morally damaged.
Post: That's not what I'm talking about.
Pre: That's what I'm talking about.
Post: EGW said....
Pre: EGW said....
Repeat until someone gets tired.

But once we finally agree on what the topic is, I find much common ground with postlapsarians.

However, there is still a major sticking point that only one postlapsarian I know has grasped (though he doesn't necessarily agree). Note this exchange:

This means that the "fallen nature" that postlapsarians feel is so important to understand, and many spend their lives studying and teaching it, does not encompass the moral and spiritual nature. In light of the fact that we can only take our characters to the next life, I believe it is better to focus on that which addresses the needs of the moral and spiritual nature.

My previously-mentioned friend asked me if I believe that a last-generation movement to prepare a people with perfect characters, should NOT have Christ's fallen nature as a major focus (obviously referring to LGT). I said, "Yes." How can you perfect character by focusing on that which does not address the moral and spiritual nature?

That's right.

But I did present my views on the old nature of Christ thread.

I'll answer these questions.

If you didn't before, you just did in your next breath. See below.


Unless you believe that the impact of sin does not encompass the moral and spiritual nature, it is not part of the "heredity" you speak of.