To deny self is just to do something you wouldn’t like to do, or to abstain from doing something you would like to do, for the love of another.

Adam had to deny self before sin. Christ denied self in heaven. God denied self.

The first moral lesson given to Adam was that of self-denial. The reins of self-government were placed in his hands. Judgment, reason, and conscience were to bear sway. "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." {Con 12.2}

"But in carrying out his enmity toward Christ till he crucified him,-- hung him on the cross of Calvary, with bruised body and broken heart,--Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe. Christ's death silenced forever the charge that with God self-denial was impossible. It was seen that God denied himself because of his love for mankind." {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 5}

"Christ denied himself. He did not count heaven a place to be desired while we were lost, and he left the heavenly courts to suffer a life of shame, reproach, insult, and mockery. For our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich. He lived a life of self-sacrifice and self-denial, and passed over the ground that we must travel, in order to leave us an example that we might follow in his steps." {ST, June 1, 1891 par. 3}

"In carrying out his enmity to Christ until He hung upon the cross of Calvary, with wounded, bruised body and broken heart, Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe.It was then seen that God had in His Son denied Himself, giving Himself for the sins of the world, because He loved mankind. The Creator was revealed in the Son of the infinite God. Here the question, 'Can there be self-denial with God?' was forever answered. Christ was God, and condescending to be made flesh, He assumed humanity and became obedient unto death, that He might undergo infinite sacrifice." {1SM 342.1}

"Let us learn what it means to deny self as Christ denied self. He laid aside all that He had with the Father, and clothing His divinity with humanity came to earth that He might teach men and women how they might overcome. We are living in a time of test. Shall we not decide to stand on the side of Christ in this matter?" {2SAT 319.2}

But while Ellen White does say that Christ denied self, and that He denied self in heaven, and that God denied self, she never said that He had to crucify and subdue self. On the contrary, she said:

“Christ did not need to fast for forty days because of inward corruption, or to subdue self. He was sinless. It was on our account that He fasted. He had been exalted by God, but He humbled Himself, and when He could have taken advantage of circumstances to favor Himself, He did not do this.” {21MR 11.4}

Walper, Weiland and EGW are on the same page. This point was a major issue at the 1888 General Conference. It seems it still is an issue today.

Rosangela, can you clearly state if you believe Jesus had a pre-fall nature or a post-fall nature? Which?

APL,
You didn't answer. Which is your view? Wieland's or Ann Walper's? Because they aren't on the same page.
And never was Christ's propensity to sin an issue at the 1888 General Conference.

Walper's and Wielands and EGW are on the same page. And the nature of Christ was an issue.

EGW's statement in this letter confirms:

"Coming as He did, as a man, to meet and be subjected to, with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, working in every conceivable manner to destroy His faith, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan." Letter K-303, 1903

Walper and Wieland are contradictory and you didn't offer any satisfactory explanation for their contradictions.

As to the quote. The typewritten sentence reads, "Coming, as He did, as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan, the rebel who had been expelled from heaven."
But Ellen White made handwritten additions. The statement then would read "Coming, as He did, as a man, to meet and be subjected to with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan, the rebel who had been expelled from heaven."
Of course "to with" does not make sense, so if the words "to meet and be subjected to" were to be added, "with" would have to be edited out. Then the reference would be to the evil tendencies of the Satan-inspired people who would buffet Him.

Besides, this passage wouldn't harmonize with Wieland's view. He says "an 'evil propensity' is understood as sinful character involving personal choice." In the quote above she speaks of "evil tendencies," which, if interpreted in relation to Christ, would mean He had sinful character. I don't know how you can say that these three people are on the same page.

Jesus took upon Himself our fallen, sinful flesh nature. It clamored for sinful expression just like ours does. Jesus Himself did not clamor for sinful expression. Neither do born-again believers who are abiding in Jesus (that is, they do not clamor for sinful expression).

Rosangela - Walper, Weiland, and EGW all agree.

You said, " He says "an 'evil propensity' is understood as sinful character involving personal choice." In the quote above she speaks of "evil tendencies," which, if interpreted in relation to Christ, would mean He had sinful character. I don't know how you can say that these three people are on the same page. "

I think you did not read the opening post in it entirety. "evil propensity" is sin acted upon. Evil tendencies are do not need to be acted upon. This is what Weiland said, quoting from the OP:

In Ellen White’s own context, her use of the term “propensities of sin” means a yielding to temptation, a harboring of an evil purpose, that would be the compulsive result of a previous involvement in an act, word, or thought of sin. She did not teach that we incur guilt genetically.

Jones and Waggoner never implied that Christ had “evil propensities.” Ellen White defines her own terms. We cannot inject into her use of these words our own misconceptions. She said “not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” This language is meaningless unless the phrase “not for one moment” is understood as implying the exercise of personal choice from moment to moment. Such an expression doesn’t make sense if it refers to genetic inheritance. Thus an “evil propensity” is understood as sinful character involving personal choice. In the same letter, her context makes her meaning clear: “Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.”

Christ did not have a sinful character. He never acted upon any evil tendency.

You make Christ out as having Adam's nature before his fall. In this EGW, Weiland, Walper, Jones and Waggoner do not agree with you. Christ had OUR nature, this side of the fall. MM gave a number of scripture quotations.

The paragraph dealing with the human nature of Christ, from the K-303 letter, the interlineations indicated between the symbols < >,

"When Christ first announced to the heavenly host His mission and work in the world, He declared that He was to leave His position of dignity and disguise His holy mission by assuming the likeness of a man, when in reality He was the Son of the infinite God. And when the fullness of time was come, He stepped down from His throne of highest command, laid aside His royal robe and kingly crown, clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to this earth to exemplify what humanity must do and be in order to overcome the enemy and to sit with the Father upon His throne. Coming as He did, as a man, <to meet and be subjected to>/with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, <working in every conceivable manner to destroy his faith>, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan, the rebel who had been expelled from heaven."

As quoted in the OP: ... a succinct example of Ellen White’s use of the word “propensities”: “Self-indulgence, self-pleasing, pride, and extravagance must be renounced. We cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities” (R&H, May 16, 1893). When Paul says,”Christ did not please Himself” (Romans 15:3), it is clear that He did not have these “propensities.”

One can quite easily discover Ellen White’s idea of “propensities” by consulting the Index, vol. 2, pages 2157 and 2158 under “Propensity.” Every statement cited can be reasonably understood as consistent with the idea that an “evil” or “sinful propensity” is an indulged lust created by a previous environmental involvement in acts of sin, strengthened by repetition. An alcoholic has a propensity for alcohol because he has used it previously.” Not for one moment was there in [Christ] an evil propensity”—this does not mean He did not “take” our fallen, sinful nature, because those who have the faith of Jesus (within mortal, sinful flesh) “need not retain one sinful propensity.” God’s grace “works in us … to overcome powerful propensities” (7BC 943; COL 354, emphasis supplied). But even after God’s people “overcome” fully, they will still be in “sinful flesh,” with a “sinful nature,” until glorification.

What about Walper? She agrees with Weiland! From the OP: Sinless nature = a nature completely without sin in any form, such as Adam had when he came from the Creator’s hand, such as the unfallen angels and God Himself possess.

Sinful nature = the corrupted nature, which is influenced and tempted by Satan to do those things which are contrary to God’s will, but it does NOT have to yield to Satan’s attacks (this is an essential element in the Cleansing of the Sanctuary doctrine).

Sinning nature = the nature which continues to indulge in those things which are contrary to God’s will; this is an active, willful behavior from a character which is in rebellion to God.

From this we see that Christ, in His incarnation, could step down from His "sinless nature" and, in His humanity, assume a "sinful nature" (Philippians 2:5-8). By faith He kept that "sinful nature" from becoming a "sinning nature," proving to the universe that fallen, sinful man COULD keep the law of God. Therefore, Mrs. White could say that "not even by a thought" did Christ consent to sin. "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:15-16). This is indeed GOOD NEWS for sinners! Christ is our example in all things and has proved that overcoming sin in this life is possible.

This concept on the nature of Christ, which Jones and Waggoner stressed in their sermons and writings, was one of the foundation pillars of the 1888 message. Mrs. White called their message the "most precious message" of "Christ and His righteousness" (Testimonies to Ministers pp 91 and 92). The nature of Christ has become a strong point of contention during the last 50 years’ discussion regarding the 1888 message and it content.

One more point worth clarifying is the phrase "evil propensity." A propensity is "an intense inclination" or "leaning toward" (Webster’s). In and of itself, a propensity is not automatically "bad" or "evil." But once an inclination is "indulged" it becomes much stronger in it’s pull upon us. For example, most people who have never smoked a cigarette have no strong desire to ever smoke. But, persons who have indulged in the smoking habit, find it very hard to avoid using them again. Staying "smoke free" is difficult, and requires a constant battle against the body’s strong desire for the nicotine rush. Habits formed which revolved around the use of cigarettes may continue to haunt the individual for many years—like absentmindedly reaching into their pocket for a cigarette during stressful moments.

Christ came to this earth and took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, with all of its weaknesses, liabilities, and inclinations, but He never developed an "evil propensity" because He never indulged in any sin, not even in His thoughts. He took our fallen equipment and in that defective equipment, He wrought out the perfect performance. He kept every commandment of God, thus proving that mankind CAN be an overcomer and vindicate God’s character against the claims of Satan. Unless Christ took our nature, He could not be our example in "all things."

Both Weiland and Walper use the tern "evil propensity" as did EGW as a sin indulged. Christ never did!

Where are you getting your definitions?

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:


In other words, propensity = disposition, inclination, tendency, or bent of mind.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GREEN - I'm getting them from the writers themselves. READ the opening post. Your question betrays you.

APL,

You are not getting your definition from Mrs. White. She does not say what you interpret.

Again, a propensity is a tendency. Christ did not have any "tendency" to sin, no sinful "habit" to overcome (how could He have had any "habit" for that which He had never done even once?), and no leaning nor inclination to sin. He never wanted to sin. A propensity is a leaning toward, or an inclination toward something, just as the dictionary says. This is exactly what Mrs. White meant.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.