Tom,

This was my original question:



You replied:



Which you later expanded as being “without a taint of sin in the character.”

I said the quotes refer to the moment Adam was created, and you don’t believe Adam was created with a character. You then said,



Which brings us again to the beginning. If the fact that Adam was created without a taint of sin means he was created with a sinless nature, this means that a taint of sin = a sinful nature. Is this what you mean?

was "sinful nature" defined somewhere on this thread?

No, it's not. She obviously didn’t agree with Waggoner’s view that Christ had a beginning, which he presented in 1888 (see below).


Wasn’t the book “Christ and His Righteousness” based on the stenographic notes made by Waggoner’s wife of his messages during the 1888 conference?


How many times did she say that Christ’s humanity had tendencies to sin?


There are statements in the writings of all the authors endorsed, including those of Waggoner, which clearly contradict what Ellen White said. So yes, the statement that Ellen White’s endorsements considered the general thrust of a message instead of specific points involved in the subject is valid for Jones and Waggoner, too.
It seems your memory is a little faulty. What I said was that the numbers 0 and 1 are used for theoretical purposes, but if you know without a shadow of a doubt that something will happen (1) or not (0), rigorously speaking this is not a probability, but a certainty. I even quoted this: “Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain.”

Hi Rosa, I'm sure Tom is capable of answering for himself, obviously, but I had this quote from Paulson at the tip of my metaphoric tongue—a response that perhaps simplifies the confusion and seeming contradiction in the writings EGW:

In another statement, from the famous Baker letter, Ellen White says of Christ: "His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin" (45). But other Ellen White statements make it clear that the spiritual nature is the same as the higher nature:

Professed followers of Christ are today eating and drinking with the drunken, while their names stand in honored church records. Intemperance benumbs the moral and spiritual powers and prepares the way for indulgence of the lower passions (46).

The faculties of the mind, as the higher powers, are to rule the kingdom of the body. The natural appetites and passions are to be brought under the control of the conscience and the spiritual affections (47).

By such misuse of the marriage relation, the animal passions are strengthened; and as these grow stronger the moral and intellectual faculties become weaker. The spiritual is overborne by the sensual (48).

The indulgence of natural appetites and passions has a controlling influence upon the nerves of the brain. The animal organs are strengthened, while the moral and spiritual are depressed (49).

Ellen White declares elsewhere, regarding Jesus: "He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family" (50).

Many have alleged that this means He was born without the inherited sinful nature common to all humans. But at least two other statements make it clear that His being "born without a taint of sin" refers to His divine nature, not to the absence of fleshly desires in His lower, human nature:

What a sight was this for Heaven to look upon? Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition (51).

Though He had no taint of sin upon His character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity (52).

In other words, all Ellen White means when she says Christ was "born without a taint of sin" (53) is that He came from heaven pure. In no way does she ever imply that anyone is tainted with sin just by being born.

This point helps us clarify what Ellen White means in other statements where she says: "He (Christ) took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature" (54). The sinless nature here described refers not to His inherited human nature, but to His divine nature. This becomes clearer yet in another statement:

Sinless and exalted by nature, the Son of God consented to take the habiliments of humanity, to become one with the fallen race (55).

Other statements likewise clarify that when Ellen White says Jesus had no taint of sin, she is talking about His choices, not the human nature He took at birth:

One unsanctified act on the part of our Saviour would have marred the pattern, and He could not have been a perfect example of us; but although He was tempted in all points like as we are, He was yet without one taint of sin (56).

Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man's behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin. No taint of sin was upon Him (57).

Not one impure word escaped His lips. Never did He do a wrong action, for He was the Son of God. Although He possessed a human form, yet He was without a taint of sin (58).

See GCO for more of Paulson's conclusions. Or don't.

William

There was no agreement as to its definition.
Rarely does Ellen White apply the term "sinful nature" to Jesus. I just remember one instance of this. The term she generally uses is "fallen nature".
Non-postlapsarians defined "fallen nature" as the human nature Jesus took, but that nature didn't encompass the spiritual/moral aspect (Jesus' mind).
Postlapsarians don't seem to disagree with this, but to them sinful tendencies are part and parcel of the human nature Jesus took, because sinful tendencies are not in the mind, but in the body.

That’s the problem, William. We are discussing statements which refer to the human nature Christ took at birth:

Christ “had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).

”He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but He did not take the taint of sin.” {20MR 324.1}

Like I said, sorry for butting in. Smiling.

William

Tom just emailed and said I could write on his behalf because he's ill. OK. I couldn't resist poking my nose in it one more time.

We really don't have a "problem" here or anywhere regarding the HOC. Alright, at least we shouldn't. Just a quick spin from a fresh perspective.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church had been clear as to what "nature Christ took at birth." Zurcher writes:

"According to Ellen White, the human nature of Christ was defined at the very beginning by the early pioneers, along with other fundamental beliefs. "After the great disappointment. . . the truth was opened point by point, and entwined with their most hallowed recollections and sympathies. The searchers after truth felt that the identification of Christ with their nature and interest was complete."

In 1872 the SDAC created A Declaration of the Fundamental Beliefs Taught and Practiced by Seventh-day Adventists:

It said, “that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race.”

Note “nature” and “the seed of Abraham.” No room for ambiguity here, right?

This was the church's official take until 1931. How many of us even know this. Then there appeared a numbing bite in Froom's coiled QOD. Zurcher grabbed his heel and scratched his head,

"One can only be astonished at this sudden change in interpretation within the church, especially after presenting a unanimous front for a century of consistent teaching on this subject. In fact, since the beginning of the movement, the fallen nature of Christ had never been the subject of any controversy—unlike other doctrinal points, such as the divinity of Christ."

What else can we add to the record of history but to let Ellen White interpret Ellen White, just like we let Scripture interpret Scripture. There's simply too many clear statements to rely on those that often leave us bald—or prostrated in Evangelical dust:


Hope you feel better, Tommy!

William

so what would these fleshly desires be?



would it be these, since that is all i have ever seen the messenger of the Lord mention?

and what the habiliments mean below?







if we equated sin with selfish then arent we all born selfish and have to be taught to think of others? i mean we are not born automatically loving, are we?





she said He did not even by thought or feeling....this statement doesnt include that. in other words by the above definition Jesus could have sinned in thought or feeling.

thank you.

it seems to me we would get a lot farther if we defined all these things and by the bible instead of others understandings....