The phrase "sinful human nature" includes the idea of having tendencies to sin. If you exclude Ellen White from the conversation (since her meaning is in dispute) I can think of no one, either Adventist or non-Adventist, who, at the time that Ellen White wrote, used the phrase "sinful human nature" to mean something other than the nature that we obtain through heredity that includes tendencies to sin. Can you cite even one example of someone, either Adventist or not, using the phrase "sinful human being" with it not having this meaning?



This is typical usage. "Typical" isn't strong enough. This is the usage of the phrase. "Sinful human nature" = "a nature with tendencies to sin." If you dispute this, I would again ask that you produce some counter-example by anyone, SDA or not, contemporary to Ellen White, who used this term in some other way.



But tendencies to sin, passed on by heredity, are also effects of sin. These would have to be included, or else Christ would not have followed the "great law of heredity."



No, it's not. It's in disagreement with your interpretation of the Baker letter. The interpretation of the Baker letter is disputed. It's a private letter to someone who was teaching something, we know not what. EGW said if we wish to know her position on a subject, we should consult her *published* works. The counsel was given for a good reason. Because we do not know the specifics behind the counsel given in a private letter, we are liable to jump to wrong conclusions.

If it were EGW's purpose to correct the view of Christ's human nature that Jones and Waggoner taught, it's hardly a credible theory that she would do so be remaining silent about it while she preached side by side with Jones and Waggoner, while they preached this subject. She wrote this in 1895, if I recall correctly. This was during a time when Christ's taking our human nature was being preaches as strongly as ever! In fact, she endorsed a sermon by W. W. Prescott, on the theme of Christ's taking our sinful human nature, called "The Word Made Flesh," as I recall, where Prescott made this point over 30 times. She would hardly endorse a specific sermon on this subject, on the one hand, and then write a private letter condemning the very thing she was endorsing.

The big problem I see in the theories of interpretation you are suggesting in regards to Ellen White on this subject is that they simply are not historically credible.



Tendencies to sin are both in our spiritual nature and in our flesh, which is to say that we receive tendencies to sin both genetically and by means of sinning. Christ never sinned, so He never developed any tendencies in this way, but His human nature, as far as the law of heredity is concerned, was "identical to our own."



Yes, but He had a human mother, with a sinful human nature. She was not immaculately conceive. (The quote from Bible Readings for the Home addresses this)



She never speaks of "inherited sinful propensities."



She never uses the phrase "sinful propensities" to mean anything other than propensities developed by sinning. Never. Every example of the phrase "sinful propensities" is as I cited.

There are statements which say that it was.



Of course, Christ's proving that the law can be kept by human beings with fallen natures simultaneously proves that keeping the law for man, as created, was also possible.

If MM does not produce some statement showing that Christ took our fallen nature to show that fallen man can keep the law, I'll produce something when I get home tonight.

Then you should be able to produce at least one EGW statement which says that Christ had propensities, tendencies, or inclinations to sin, or a bent to sin, or anything else in this direction.
Coming back to my original point. One can inherit physical tendencies to sin, like a tendency to drink, or to smoke. But when you speak of a tendency to selfishness, you are automatically referring to the mind. Do you think Christ had selfish tendencies in His mind?
(By the way, in my first post I didn't have the intention of reviving this discussion, but just of having two points clarified. This was one of them. The other was about Christ's temptations.)


Well, sickness is also an effect of sin, but Christ never got sick. Sinful acts are also an effect of sin, but Christ never sinned.


It’s very clear. In fact, I don't see how it can be disputed.


Are you affirming that only acquired tendencies to sin have to do with our spiritual nature?


It takes two sets of chromosomes to form a new human being. During meiosis, the matching chromosomes of father and mother can exchange small parts of themselves (crossover), and thus create new chromosomes that are not inherited solely from either parent.(Wiki) We don't know how sinful tendencies are transmitted, nor how things happened in Christ's case, so this argument of heredity is questionable, in my opinion.


“Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his 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}

It’s clear to me that “propensities of sin,” “propensities of disobedience” and “evil propensity” are all synonyms here. Are you affirming that “propensities of disobedience,” with which we are born, are different from “sinful propensities”?

Another thing to be pointed out is that she says in this quote that Adam was created "without a taint of sin upon him," but his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But, about Christ, she says that "He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family." {5MR 115.1}


OK, I’ll wait till either of you produces the quotes.

I asked you to cite anyone, other than Ellen White, who used the phrase "sinful human nature" in a way that does not include "tendencies to sin." You haven't done so.

If everybody used the term "sinful human nature" or "sinful flesh" with the meaning that Christ inherited tendencies to sin, it's unreasonable to suppose that Ellen White had her own private dictionary where a phrase that meant one thing to everybody else meant something different to only her (and those smart enough to figure out her secret meaning half a century after she died).



It's difficult for me to answer your question as stated, so I'll answer what you're getting at in another way, and if that's not sufficient, you can revisit this. Christ had to deny Himself, just like we do. Although He developed no sinful tendencies (as He never sinned), He nevertheless took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature, which sinful nature pressed against Him, as it does us, requiring that He deny Himself, just as it requires that we deny ourself, in order to do God's will as opposed to the will of self.

In other words, He had a will, or self, that had to be denied, just as we do. Unlike us, He perfectly denied Himself, so that He could say, "I do always those things which please Him."



He never got selfish either.



Yes, sure. I don't know what this point is.



It's not at all clear. I'm amazed you could say this with a straight face (of course, I can't see your face; maybe you were winking). I can hardly think of anything *more* disputed than the Baker letter.

It would hardly be like Ellen White to address privately such a public issue. That is, if Baker were presenting what Jones and Waggoner were presenting, then it makes no sense that Ellen White would send off a private letter to someone virtually no one knew, rather than address the issue with Jones and Waggoner, whom virtually everybody knew.

This is what I find to be the weakest point in your interpretations. It doesn't take into account the historical reality of the situation.

For example, when the Holy Flesh movement was being confronted, Stephen Haskell wrote the following to Ellen White:



Then, a week later, Haskel wrote an editorial in the Review and Herald, stating:



Haskell was quoting from the Desire of Ages:

Then he commented:

Here we see Haskell quoting from Ellen White, and interpret her meaning, in a public paper, to dispute a teaching that he and Ellen White were working on together to confront. It's inconceivable that Ellen White would allow Haskell to incorrectly quote her, given the circumstances.

In this same time frame, E. J. Waggoner, at the 1901 GC session, at which Ellen White was present, said the following:



So here we see important figures in the SDA church, Haskell and Waggoner, working in concert with Ellen White, to rebut the Holy Flesh teaching. She was a part of this. That she would remain silent, assuming Haskell was incorrect in quoting her, or that Waggoner's argument was unsound, especially assuming she had already written against such ideas (e.g. to Baker), is simply not possible. It doesn't match the historical setting.



What I'm saying is that there are tendencies to sin which are present within our inherited natures. Christ had those. There are tendencies to sin which we develop because we sin. Christ never sinned, so He did not obtain tendencies to sin in this way.



That Christ inherited tendencies to sin was common knowledge, in the SDA church, as the Bible Readings for the Home quote illustrates. Many more examples could be presented. This was even an area for discussion (i.e., it wasn't contentious).



What SDA's believed is that Christ inherited tendencies to sin, just like the rest of us, but that Christ always resisted these tendencies. Again, quoting Haskell:



This is how Ellen White was understood by her contemporaries, who quoted her, with her knowledge, while she was alive and able to correct any errors with her meaning (which she did routinely, but not here).

Regarding the Baker letter, it is clear to me she is saying the same thing that all Adventists said, which is that Christ came with a human nature like ours, but He never sinned in that nature. Again, it's simply not feasible, given the historical context, that she was speaking against the views that Jones and Waggoner presented, men with whom she preached on the same subject, side by side, and whose position on this subject she defended. (e.g. 1888 Mat. 533 par. 6)

Are you sure the phrase "as God created him" means post-fall sinless man? What about all the other statements that plainly Jesus came to show how born again sinners can obey the law perfectly?

If we limit our discussion to the Bible, which is not necessary, it clearly says Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Just exactly what sinful flesh is like is described in the preceding verses. It wars against the Spirit and new man mind within born again believers who are abiding in Jesus. The sin that dwells within them, that is, within their sinful flesh, generates and communicates all manner of unholy thoughts and feelings, which are nothing more than temptations.

They do not become a sin until the moment they are owned and cherished. They do not contaminate or corrupt character. This is the type of sinful flesh nature Jesus inherited at birth. It's tendencies, inclinations, propensities were decidedly sinful, but from the cradle to the cross Jesus resisted them in the same way born again believers must rsist them. It is important not to confuse the inherited propensities of His fallen flesh nature with the cultivated propensities He nurtured and developed from conception and birth.

Rosangela, do you believe our sinful nature is transformed the moment we are born again, that it ceases to war against the Spirit and mind of the new man, that it generates and communicates thoughts and feelings that are in harmony with the will of God?

There are actually quite a lot of statements which make the point that Christ came to show that fallen man could keep the law of God. Happily I've been able to find the specific one I was looking for.

If we assume that Jesus came to share our experience of what it means to be humans, and if we further assume that we indeed have inherited traits of or towards sin, then it follows that Jesus must have had these same inherited traits in order to accomplish His objective of sharing our experience. If He came and became human in a pre-sin condition, then it could only be said that He shares the experience of very, very few humans, perhaps only two.

For this to be otherwise, either of the two premises must be changed so that we conclude that Jesus did NOT come to share our experience of what it means to be human or that there is no such thing as inherited traits of or towards sin.

I agree, Thomas. A famous quote is:



This was written by Gregory of Nazianzus, probably in the latter half of the 4th century.

Here's some more of the quote, which I found interesting.




E. J. Waggoner expressed the thought this way: