Thanks William for bringing this reference up. I had to look it up to know what it was about. Here's someone describing 3 different views of the nature of Christ.


So it looks like Tom is holding View #1, and Rosangela & apparently EGW held View #3.

Personally, I believe in View #3 is the only one possible, especially when applied to baby Jesus.

Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. So whatever our sinful nature is, Christ took, since He took "our sinful nature."

The concept of original sin involves the idea that one is guilty apart from volition. That is, simply the act of being requires having a Savior. So if Christ's human nature was like ours, He also would need a Savior. Therefore Christ's human nature must have been different than ours.



Here's a similar statement:



This degraded, defiled human nature is the one Christ took. Christ was born of a woman, born "under the law."



When Adam fell, the race fell, and all in the race need a Savior. In Adam, all are condemned. The Good News is that in Christ all are justified.









Preguiça.



Waggoner wrote this:



I think this is the same thought EGW expressed.



This looks similar. As related to Adam, we receive no good thing. Only in Christ do we receive life, peace, righteousness, etc.



Regarding "born in sin," here is a parallel passage:



So EGW's point had to do with Seth's inheriting the fallen nature of his parents.



Of our nature, it is written:



I believe this was the same situation for Christ. He took a human nature which, apart from divine help, would have turned Him away from God.

In asking if we are born with a moral/spiritual nature, I'd want to know that is defined. If this is dealing with hereditary inclinations, I'd say yes. If this is dealing with character, I'd so no.



I don't think it's fair for you to characterize me as having been dishonest. You asked for my opinion, so I've told you what think. I think, in terms of substance, you're similarities with them are great, and your differences minor. You and they agree with original sin, which is the big thing. You both perceive that Christ had no tendencies to sin, whether inherited or not, and that this is the condition that the 144,000 must obtain. I think you're differences are mostly semantical, having to do with how you define "holy flesh." (and, of course, with the fanaticism).

Obviously our perspective on things is very different. I would attribute our differences to that rather than dishonesty. There are a number of interpretations you provide to Ellen White's statements which I find simply unbelievable, such as that "Letters have been coming to me" (speaking about Christ's taking our human nature when she was traveling with Jones and Waggoner) is talking about something other than what Jones and Waggoner were preaching, but I don't attribute these interpretations to a lack of honesty but of perception.

I've cited what Haskell said, and what Donnell said, and it seems clear to me that you agree with Donnell and disagree with Haskell.



I don't see anything wrong with the desire to have sex with someone you're dating and have the intention of marrying. It seems very odd to me that one would think of this as being a sin. It would be a sin to feed or act upon the desire.

Do you think it is a sin to be sexually attracted to the person you are dating?



I don't understand why you are making the distinction between having a desire for sex and having a desire for sex with a specific person. What sort of sex would Christ have a desire for, if not the sort of sex which involves a specific person?

Given that Christ had no desire for sex, Satan's suggestions wouldn't have any chance of success, would they? Why would he waste his time tempting Christ on something which was not desirable?

Quite welcome, Elle. Yes, Whidden's paper asserted many things, some of which Kevin Paulson refuted in his own rebuttal. We've clearly drawn our lines in the sand, eh?

Despite our positions, Zurcher's scholarly classic, a full 300 pages, by sheer volume remains the academic standard on the history of the humanity of Christ debate.

For the record, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone suggesting Ellen White was a prelapsarian and believed in original sin. Quite a shock, really. But I'm listening.

William

Please William do share with us what view you hold.

BTW. Welcome to the forum. It's nice to have individual from a country known for their politeness and gentle behavior.

Do you have any children?

Of course, my pleasure. Unequivocally postfall through and through.

I often chuckle (perhaps in pain?) when I consider the aftermath of QOD and Froom's stated purpose of "changing the impaired image of Adventism," and recall the backroom story surrounding his infamous subtitle, Christ "took sinless nature of Adam before fall," all of which may help you understand (in part) why I don't mind being called "hardcore" postlapsarian. Among other things. Ha.

William

This is inaccurate. Christ did not have inclinations to sin, but He took a fallen nature "with its hereditary inclinations." Because Christ took our fallen nature upon His sinless nature, and because Christ never responded to the temptations of the flesh, it would be misleading to say that Christ had inclinations to sin. Similarly it would be inaccurate to say that Christ was prone to sin.







A.In Christ were united the divine nature and the nature of "Adam the transgressor."

B.Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature.

C.Christ accepted the workings of the law of heredity, the results of which are shown in the history of his ancestors.



2 and 3 are just a difference in semantics. It's basically the original sin idea. This is what the whole thing comes down to; do we believe in original sin or not? This impacts righteousness by faith as well.

What happened with 2 was 2 was found to be untenable in the light of EGW's writings. So the wording of the idea was tweaked, so it is not asserted that Christ took a "sinful nature" but the meaning is a "sinless nature."

SDAism is the only denomination that has the idea that a fallen nature can mean a nature without tendencies to sin. Amazing! And the only reason this exists is because of Ellen White statements. The content of our belief is no different than that of Evangelicals (except some Evangelicals believe Christ could have sinned), but the expression of the idea is different. The Evangelicals would say the same thing as #2.



2 and 3 are the same (except for the wording; 2 is a more accurate wording, but unacceptable because of EGW quotes). A problem with asserting that Ellen White believed 3 (or 2) is the historical setting. For example she endorsed Jones, Waggoner and Prescott whom all believed 1, endorsing them on this very subject. For example, she endorsed a specific sermon by Prescott called "The Word Became Flesh" the theme of which was #1.

Just on the face of it the idea that the entire church was contrary to the idea of original sin, except for Ellen White (who was in favor of it), but she never gave expression to this in a way that those around her could notice, only to have her true feelings discovered many years after her death is, to say the least, implausible.

William, I wish I could laugh with you, but I can't even understand what you wrote. It went way over my head. Could you simplify and paraphrase the above for someone with a "French Accident"

Hey, William! Enjoying your posts.



I have a good one in mind, but takes a little time to write up. Just letting you know, this is a great question, and on my mind.

Moved up from page 53.


Yes, it is a sin when I have an unholy desire and it must be confessed. However, there is a difference between "having" an unholy desire versus an unholy thought and feeling tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus. Do you agree?

And, do you agree all temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings? If not, how, then, do you think people become consciously aware of the fact they are being tempted?


Amen! However, this isn't true of all hereditary and cultivated inclinations to evil which clamor for sinful expression. The other quotes I posted above make this point painfully clear. How do you reconcile them with the idea we are guilty in the sight of God until we rid ourselves of all sinful inclinations to evil?

Here are the quotes I think MM is referring to: