Tom,

quote:

---

Christ partook of the same heredity that we do, without exception.

---

Of course not. Christ did not have sinful propensities, which means He was not born selfish.

John,

quote:

---

The Bible says it's sin that separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2), not being born

---

We are born selfish, and selfishness is sin. In fact, selfishness is the satanic nature, in the same way that love is the divine nature.

Ephesians 2:3 and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

The Victorian usage of the word "propensity" is often missaplied today in SDA circles.

Here is Webster's two meaning:

1.a natural inclination or tendency; bent

2.[Obscure] favorable inclination; bias (for)

The first sounds applicable to genetic and/or learned twists in personality.

But the other, being the old usage, I feel the one EGW would have used, appears to be a matter of decision and will, a relish, attraction or enjoyment. This Christ could not have had toward any sin.

I don't know, Tom: I agree with the general tone of your last few posts, but can we not have freedom when trully born again from our genetic propensities as well? Is the drunk's gene to always rule over the redeemed, or is rebirth actual recreation, rewiring, recoding, if we have the faith of Jesus?

Since a fetus is a human being, in every sense of the word, it starts developing character in the womb. Please review the quotes regarding this point earlier on in this thread. Infants are born selfish. No doubt about it. We are by nature the children of wrath. We must be born again. Why? Because our first birth is sinful and defective.

Our will is under the control of Satan. We cannot not sin until we're born again. If we are born sinless, and continue to be sinless until around age 12 (as some believe), then we need not be born again until after 12, which would mean Jesus did not die for children, only adults, which, of course, sounds (and is) heretical.

Jesus was born with the same sinful flesh nature we possess, but He was born like a born again believer, not like an unsaved sinner. There is a huge difference between the two. So, yes, His sinful nature clamored for sinful expression the same as a born again believer, but He never once yielded to it. So it may be with us. Like Jesus, we too can recognize and resist the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated by our fallen flesh nature. By staying connected to Jesus we can be more than conquerors - just like Jesus.

T: You're misapplying EGW's use of the word "propensities." Sinful propensities, as she used the term, refers to cultivated habits, not genetic predisposition.

R: This is not at all what the text says:

“Because of sin, his [Adam’s] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}

T: It is what the text says, and it would have to be, or else she would be contradicting Haskell, Jones, Prescott, Waggoner, and most of all herself in many other explicit statements and endorsements. As I mentioned previously, the entire SDA denomination did not know of even the idea that Christ took a pre-fallen nature until after nearly 100 years. The first time this idea appeared in print, if memory serves, was in 1947 in a Ministry magazine.

Also the statement you are quoting from is a private letter, which if we are going to follow her own counsel on how she said her own writings should be used, we shouldn't even be considering. She said if we wanted to know her opinion on a given subject we should consult her published works, which is why I was quoting from The Desire of Ages, which is her definitive statement on Christology (the subject matter of the book being the life of Christ).

But even if you look at the text (which according to her counsel we shouldn't be) you will notice it says, "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." This makes it clear she was considering "propensity" not as something genetic, but as having to do with sinning.

Note: He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

This statement is absolute nonsense if we consider it to be genetic. Let's try it out and see:

He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him sinful genes.

Old Tom:She says we need not retain our sinful propensities, which would of course be impossible if they were genetic.

R: Do we need to retain selfishness?

T: We need to be partakers of the divine nature by faith and overcome the promptings of our flesh, just as Christ did.

The following statement is one amongs many which makes clear that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature (or equivalent partook of our sinful flesh)

quote:

---

Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh." (BE 9/3/00)

---

Note the the likeness of sinful flesh is contrasted to Adam, who had no corrupt principles or tendencies to evil.

Note the "but".

Also note the following from the Desire of Ages (same quote as before)

quote:

---

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)

---

The emphasized part is very important. Some have the mistaken idea that Christ's taking our natures simply means He could grow weary or hungry like we do. But when EGW speaks of His accepting the great law of heredity, she clarifies what she means by pointing out that the results are shown by the history of His earthly ancestors. What was this history? It was not a history of growing weary or hungry, but a history of sin; a history of murder, adultery and many other base sins. *This* was the heredity of which Christ partook, and she explains why: "He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."

MM: Since a fetus is a human being, in every sense of the word, it starts developing character in the womb.

Tom: It develops a potential for developing character, but character has to do with making decisions, integrity and such things. What decisions does a fetus make?

MM: Please review the quotes regarding this point earlier on in this thread. Infants are born selfish. No doubt about it.

Tom: Christ was an infant. Therefore Christ was born selfish. This disproves your assertion, sinc e the conclusion is absurd.

So let's try this one: All infants with the exception of Christ are born selfish. This doesn't have the difficult of being immediately disproveable, but what is the basis for this assertion?

MM: We are by nature the children of wrath. We must be born again. Why? Because our first birth is sinful and defective.

T: We must be born again because of unbelief. That's what Jesus says in John 3. What's the basis of your assertion that we must be born again because our first birth is sinful and defective?

MM: Our will is under the control of Satan. We cannot not sin until we're born again.

T: If you mean be this that we cannot overcome sin without being born again, I agree. If you mean we can do nothing but sin without being born again, I don't agree with that. That sounds like original sin where we are tainted by our heredity. This is not SDA theology. But I may be misunderstanding you, so I'll stop here.

MM: If we are born sinless,
and continue to be sinless until around age 12 (as some believe),

Tom: I don't know anybody who believes this. Who are you thinking of?

MM: then we need not be born again until after 12, which would mean Jesus did not die for children, only adults, which, of course, sounds (and is) heretical.

T: This whole sentence is non-sensical. First of all, nobody that I've ever heard of believes anybody remains sinless until age 12. Everything Christ did, not just His death, but His life, death, and resurrection (and ministry and Second Coming) is for all of humanity. This has nothing to do with when one reaches the age of accountability. The entire race was restored to favor with God but Christ's work (1SM 343). This includes infants of course.

MM: Jesus was born with the same sinful flesh nature we possess, but He was born like a born again believer, not like an unsaved sinner.

T: What is your basis for asserting this? I'm aware of a statement that it is a mystery unexplained to mortals how Christ remained sinless as a child, but I'm not aware of a statement saying what you are saying.

MM: There is a huge difference between the two. So, yes, His sinful nature clamored for sinful expression the same as a born again believer, but He never once yielded to it. So it may be with us. Like Jesus, we too can recognize and resist the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated by our fallen flesh nature. By staying connected to Jesus we can be more than conquerors - just like Jesus.

Tom: I agree with this last part, mostly, but I wouldn't say "His sinful nature" myself, as this may be misunderstood, but I understand your intent, and agree that we may overcome in our flesh as Christ did.