I think propensity comes from the Latin "propendere" which means "to hang down," and that the Oxford dictionary defines it that way.

Regardless of how one defines it, your claim that one side says that Christ had propensities cannot be true if that side denies that this is the case.

In trying to avoid controversy, it would be good to represent the situation in a way in which both sides can agree with what is said (not regarding what is true, but that the thoughts of both sides are being accurately presented). Here's my attempt:

a)One side says that Ellen White's view of the human nature of Christ is that Christ took our fallen, sinful human nature, and that His heredity was the same as ours. This includes the ability to be tempted in all points as we are, including by way of tendencies to sin that have been inherited.

b)The other side denies this to be the case, emphasizing that the human nature which Christ took was like ours in some respects, but unlike ours in others. In particular, Christ did not inherit any tendencies to sin.

So I think the real question comes down to Christ's heredity, in particular in relation to the question of temptation.

The physical part of our being cannot be “selfish.” This can only refer to the mind.


The points on which any human being can be tempted do not depend on heredity. They are appetite, the love of the world and the love of display which leads to presumption. These were the points on which Adam and Eve were tempted, and the points on which we are tempted, too.

“With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption. These were the temptations that overcame Adam and Eve, and that so readily overcome us.” {DA 116.4}

“His [Christ’s] first test was on the same point where Adam failed. It was through temptations addressed to the appetite that Satan had overcome a large proportion of the human race, and his success had made him feel that the control of this fallen planet was in his hands. But in Christ he found one who was able to resist him, and he left the field of battle a conquered foe.” {Te 20.1}

Christ took a sinful human nature, so why couldn't we say He took a selfish human nature? What's the difference?



The ones dependent upon heredity do.



Not only are we tempted on these points, but we have a heredity which predisposes us to be susceptible to these temptations.



These quotes are dealing with areas upon which Christ was tempted. There are also quotes which deal with the nature Christ took, in which He met these temptations. For example:





Where we the results shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors? Murder, adultery, and every sort of vice and sin. Christ was made of the seed ("spermatos") of David, according to the flesh. He came with a heredity like ours, having to fight the same battles with inherited tendencies to sin that we have to.

This was the view of Ellen White's contemporaries. We have statements from Stephen Haskell, E. J. Waggoner., W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones, and many others affirming this. We have the following from Ellen White:



She wrote this after preaching with Jones and Waggoner on the subject of Christ's human nature. She affirmed the position that she and Jones and Waggoner were presenting.

The church as a whole only had one view on this question until around 1950.

That “sinful” may refer to the physical effects of sin, while “selfish” can’t.


No, the points don’t, for they are three, and all human beings – sinless or sinful – are susceptible to them.


We are by heredity more susceptible to some temptations, but the three points appeal to all human beings without exception.


Sure. And to Ellen White “points” mean areas.


The text begins by saying,

“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.”

What is she referring to here? Obviously to the physical nature – the body. So this is the context of the whole paragraph.

Why? Is sin more physical than selfishness is?



John mentions three points, but Paul doesn't. The context of what Paul wrote is that we have a high priest who knows what we go through and is able to help us in time of need.



Paul wasn't talking about three points. Here's an example of how the phrase "tempted in all points as we" was understood:





Again, this isn't relevant to what Paul wrote, nor to how this phrase was understood by SDA's, as the above example shows.



She didn't quote Paul. Her quote didn't speak of Christ being tempted in all points as we are. To establish that to her the "all points" means the same thing as the three areas John mentioned, you would have to quote something from Ellen White speaking of "all points".

The "all points" was understood as in the example I gave above; not in terms of the three areas John mentioned, but in terms of inherited tendencies to sin.



Why would you jump to this conclusion? The context specifically argues against the idea that the physical body is being spoken of. I'll give two examples.

First of all, she says "what the results of this were is shown in the history of His ancestors" (not a direct quote, from memory). Now what are these results? Physical characteristics, such as being tall or short, having blue or brown eyes? Clearly her intent is in reference to the sins his ancestors created. This was a very common argument of SDA's, given in General Conference sessions.

Secondly, she says that He took such a heredity as ours in order to fight the battles that we fight, to give us an example of obedience. This can't be speaking of physical characteristics either. She's not saying that Christ did not break the law of heredity in that His hair color was brown, and in that sense He gave us an example in overcoming, because we also have hair, but that He took the tendencies to sin which are passed by His ancestors, just as is the case for us all. Otherwise He didn't fight the fight as we do, in terms of our heredity.

Her line of thought here was in opposition to what the Roman Catholic church taught, which is that Christ took Adam's nature before the fall, without any tendencies to sin. This was a common SDA argument.

No, because of the nature of the word itself. While “sinful” might refer to the effects of sin, “selfish” has a spiritual connotation.
For instance, Ellen White says,

“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.” {8MR 38.5}

So, subjection to sorrow, weariness, hunger, thirst and temptation is what constitutes the likeness of sinful flesh. But subjection to sorrow, weariness, hunger, thirst and temptation are not related to selfishness.


It’s evident that she applies the “all points” to the three leading temptations.

“In the wilderness of temptation Christ met the great leading temptations that would assail man. There He encountered, singlehanded, the wily, subtle foe, and overcame him. The first great temptation was upon appetite; the second, presumption; the third, love of the world. ... His [Satan’s] manifold temptations grow out of these three great leading points.” {4T 44.2}

“Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure. Here Christ overcame in the sinner's behalf, four thousand years after ... In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.” {1SM 267.3}

Besides, a series of two articles in 1902 in The Signs of the Times about Christ’s three temptations in the wilderness had as its title “In All Points Tempted Like As We Are,” and there she says,

"Before beginning His public ministry, Christ submitted to the fierce assaults of the enemy, knowing that without conflict there could be no victory. He condescended to engage in the contest under any circumstances that the foe might require. In all things He was made 'like unto His brethren.' He was 'in all points tempted like as we are.' 'In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.'" {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 4}


This refers to physical weakening, primarily.

The text says, “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.”

There are many quotes similar in content to the following:

“Man came from the hand of God complete in every faculty of mind and body; in perfect soundness, therefore in perfect health. It took more than two thousand years of indulgence of appetite and lustful passions to create such a state of things in the human organism as materially lessened his vital force. Through successive generations the tendency was more swiftly downward. Indulgence of appetite and passion combined, led to excess and violence; debauchery and abominations of every kind weakened the energies, and brought upon the race diseases of every type, until the vigor and glory of the first generations passed away, and, in the third generation from Adam, man began to show signs of decay. Successive generations after the flood degenerated more rapidly.” {HR, October 1, 1878 par. 1}


Yes, it can, because physical weakening implies also mental weakening, and both entail the weakening of the moral power (the power to resist temptation). Although Christ wasn’t born with sinful propensities, it seems logical that the physical and mental weakness of His body also weakened His moral power.

“It is at the time of greatest weakness that Satan assails the soul with the fiercest temptations. It was thus that he hoped to prevail over the Son of God.” {LHU 39.4}

Just as "sinful" might refer to the effects of sin, so "selfish" might refer to the effects of selfishness. That is, man's nature was changed because of Adam's sin, which caused it to have an inclination towards sin. One could just as well say that man's nature was changed because of Adam's selfishness, which caused it to have an inclination towards selfishness.

What one calls man's nature is not the important point, which is that Christ assumed it, such as it is. The human nature which Christ assumed was "identical with our own." How did He assume it? By heredity. So whatever is a part of our nature, due to our heredity, was a part of His, hence whatever tendencies to sin can be passed by heredity, He was subject to, just as we are.



If I make the statement, "I went to Brazil. While there, I visited Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo" one could hardly conclude, "So Rio de Janerio and Sao Paulo is what constitutes Brazil," yet this is what your assertion in regards to "sinful flesh" is tantamount to.

If one were to view her statement as describing what constitutes human nature, all one could validly conclude from this statement would be that sorrow, weariness, hunger and thirst are included in sinful flesh. One could not validly conclude that this is the totality of what constitutes sinful flesh. Surely you are aware that this is a logical error (as my example with Brazil illustrates).

But even the assumption that she is attempting to describe what constitutes sinful flesh is an error. Consider the collection: "sorrow, weariness, hunger and thirst." "Sorrow" is not akin to weariness, hunger or thirst. It's not a physical characteristic. It's akin to things like joy, disappointment, adversity, irritations and such like. These are not things which constitute sinful flesh. They are simply experiences that we go through because sin exists in our world. Her point, in the phrase you quoted, is not "the following is the sum and substance of what constitutes sinful flesh" but "Christ passed through experiences like ours."



It can't be. That doesn't make sense, because:

a)That's not what one thinks of when hearing the expression, "What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." The word "history" does not allow for physical characteristics, but for sinful acts.
b)She said, "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." Therefore, "like every child of Adam" He inherited tendencies to sin. Our fallen natures are not limited to physical characteristics, so neither was His. Otherwise He would not be accepting the results of the working of the great law of heredity "like every child of Adam."



You're correct that she has many quotes which discuss Christ's humiliation in taking our humanity. Because there are many points to consider in the purpose of doing so, in these different quotes she makes different conclusions. The fact that speaks of physical characteristics, such is "vital force," in some quote does not mean that this is what she has in mind in *every* quote. This is the same error in logic I spoke of above in the Brazil example above. It is confusing a statement of existence with one of universality.

Later on the Desire of Ages she writes:



Here she makes a different point. She states the race, in addition to decreasing in physical strength and mental power (physical characteristics) also decreased in moral worth, and that Christ took upon Him the infirmities of "degenerate" humanity. Her point here is that "only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation."

Our degeneracy and degradation include our inherited tendencies to sin.



I agree with the point regarding moral power. However, in accepting "the great law of heredity," Christ was subject to whatever that law entails. "No single principle of human nature will I violate" (Mx 65, 1899). Thus inherited tendencies to sin must be included in Christ's inherited human nature.

Your statement that Christ wasn't born with sinful propensities is misleading, because sinful propensities are not something one is born with.

Examples of her usage of "sinful propensities" follows:

"Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments." (AH 516)

"'If any man thirst,' for restful hope, for deliverance from sinful propensities, Christ says, 'let him come unto Me, and drink.' The only remedy for vice is the grace and power of Christ." (CH 440)

"Many decide to serve themselves and Satan by not making determined efforts to overcome their defects of character. While many are petting sinful propensities, expecting to be overcomers sometime, they are deciding for perdition." (4T 343)

"None can walk this path and carry with them their burdens of pride, self-will, deceit, falsehood, dishonesty, passion, and the carnal lusts. The path is so narrow that these things will have to be left behind by those who walk in it, but the broad road is wide enough for sinners to travel it with all their sinful propensities." (4T 364)

That’s the point. “Sinful” as Ellen White uses it, doesn’t necessarily connote an inclination towards sin (although it may do so), but “selfish” must connote an inclination towards selfishness.


This is exactly what I’m saying. Sorrow, weariness, hunger and thirst are effects of sin (both physical and mental). As I see it, this is what Ellen White classifies as the likeness of sinful flesh.

“Adam had the advantage over Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.” --Ms. 113, 1902, pp. 1, 2 (See DA 117).

Another quote similar in content to the one I posted:

“I will try to answer this important question: As God He could not be tempted: but as a man He could be tempted, and that strongly, and could yield to the temptations. His human nature must pass through the same test and trial Adam and Eve passed through. ... It was human, identical with our own. ... A human body and a human mind were His. He was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. He was subjected to poverty from His first entrance into the world. He was subject to disappointment and trial in His own home, among His own brethren. He was not surrounded, as in the heavenly courts, with pure and lovely characters. He was compassed with difficulties. {3SM 129.3, 4}


For both. Physical weakening entails a weakening of moral power (less power to resist temptation).


I’m not going to discuss this again, but of course this is in complete disagreement with the Baker letter. Besides, tendencies to sin are in our spiritual nature, and Ellen White says clearly that “His [Christ’s] spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin.” {11MR 345.4}


Christ didn’t have a human father.


Are inherited tendencies to sin different from inherited sinful propensities????
As the Baker letter shows, propensities are something one is born with.

The idea that Jesus is spiritually like Adam before the fall and physically like us prevents Him from fulfilling one of the reasons He became a man, namely, to demonstrate how born again sinners can obey the law perfectly. This purposes necessitates sinful flesh nature like we inherit.

One way around this problem is to say when we are born again our sinful nature is renewed, changed, transformed, that it ceases to tempt us from within to be unlike Jesus, that every impulse is in harmony with the will of God like Adam before the fall. If this were true, then born again believers could not be tempted from within; all temptations would originate outside of them. But does reality reflect this model?

Another way of looking at it is to say it is not a sin to be tempted from within, that the temptations that originate within are no more contaminating than the temptations that originate without. Under this model Jesus could possess sinful flesh nature just like falen man, be tempted from wtihin like us, and not suffer corruption or contamination of character.

What makes more sense? Which model is more in line with reality?

His purpose was not that.

"Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that he was a liar, and that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every requirement of God." {16MR 115.2}