And I have asked you 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, and you haven’t done so. Of course there are ambiguities in Ellen White’s words, otherwise there would be no reason for this discussion. The question is, What is the best way to reconcile her apparently contradictory statements?
I would say it’s easier to explain “sinful human nature” as parallel to other expressions of hers, like “fallen nature,” “weakness,” “degeneracy,” and “infirmities.”
You must be aware of the book of Henry Melvill of which Ellen White drew upon, and of his view that there are two primary consequences of the fall – innocent infirmities (hunger, pain, weakness, sorrow and death) and sinful propensities – and that Christ took the first but not the second. Curiously, Ellen White often mentions the first in relation to Christ, but never mentions that Christ had sinful propensities.
By the way, selfishness is classified by her as a sinful propensity, and she says that selfishness came to us as an inheritance. Of course, then, you must believe that Christ took our sinful propensities, and that He was born selfish, like the rest of us. As I pointed out, selfishness is related to the mind, and so you must believe that selfishness was present in Christ’s mind.


That Christ took some effects of sin, but not all.


Sure, by all the “Historic” camp. But I see no reasonable argument for what is written there to be disputed. She warned Baker not to set Jesus “before the people as a man with the propensities of sin.” This was in clear contrast to Adam’s posterity, who were “born with inherent propensities of disobedience.” What she meant is crystal clear.


She must have had her reasons. Ellen White seldom corrected theologically prominent ministers.


Both are tendencies, both are sinful. Tendencies to sin are a taint of sin. Ellen White says Christ “was born without a taint of sin.” As Arnold pointed out, we cannot be born having already participated in sin. So what does this refer to, except to tendencies?


Satan declared it before man sinned, and continued to declare it after man sinned, until Christ came to prove him a liar. Christ "proved that humanity and divinity combined can obey every one of God's precepts." {COL 314.4} This was true both before and after the fall.
As the quote I had posted says,

"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}

Mike, what I believe is that a new nature is implanted in our hearts – the nature of love with which man was created in the beginning, and that this new nature counterworks the nature of selfishness with which we are born. New principles are implanted and old principles subdued – but all this happens in the realm of the mind.

Thomas, if this was true, Christ needed to have shared also our cultivated tendencies to sin, which are stronger than the inherited tendencies, for sin is reinforced by repetition (you must know by experience the force of a habit).
But the process, or manner, of temptation, is always the same, whether for sinless or for sinful beings. And the way to victory is also the same - whether for sinless or for sinful beings.

We could learn much from the church fathers if we took the time to read their work, the first propably being that none of our difficult questions are new under the sun.

Rosangela, thank you for answering my question. It sounds like you believe we retain our sinful flesh nature after we are born again and Jesus imnplants within us the mind and nature of the new man, that walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man empowers us to use our faculties of mind and body to keep in subjection the clamorings of our fallen flesh nature.

If this is what you are saying, then I have another question for you. If we keep under subjection the clamorings of our fallen flesh nature, if we do not cherish them or act them out, do they contaminate our character in any way? If not, why not?

R: By the way, selfishness is classified by her as a sinful propensity, and she says that selfishness came to us as an inheritance. Of course, then, you must believe that Christ took our sinful propensities, and that He was born selfish, like the rest of us. As I pointed out, selfishness is related to the mind, and so you must believe that selfishness was present in Christ’s mind.

MM: We become aware of our inherited selfish propensities through the faculties of the mind. But being aware of them and being guilty of them is two entirely different realities, right? Isn't it possible that Jesus, like a born again believer, was aware of His inherited propensities without being guilty of them?

I think the following EGW quote that Rosangela posted earlier bears repeating here with some bolded emphasis added:

“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}

The above quote clearly states that Christ did NOT have in Him an evil propensity, NOT even for one moment, therefore, we should lay that thought to rest.

I asked first!

I demonstrated how her words were understood by her peers. That's sufficient.

I cited the text from Bible Readings for the Home. I cited Stephen Haskel *quoting from Ellen White* and explaining her meaning as including tendencies to sin. This was in a public paper, whose purpose was to discredit a false teaching, which was predicated on the idea that Christ did not take our fallen human nature with its tendencies to sin.

It's clear that her writings were understood to mean that Christ took our nature with its tendencies to sin. This thought was repeated over and over again. She preached side by side with people her preached it with her standing but a few feet away. She had every opportunity to correct this idea if it was in error.

Certainly she would have corrected Stephen Haskell quoting her own work!



Take a look at how her contemporaries understood her. That's the best way, because she was alive at the time to correct any misunderstandings.



If some other SDA contemporary of hers had this understanding, that would be an argument that what you are suggesting were possible. However, given that they actually understood her meanings according to what I've cited, it's not.



Of course that's not true. I believe the same thing the SDA's of her time believed, and no one believed that. This is a straw man argument. All one needs to do is simply read what our church published and preached, and one can see what our view was. There weren't disagreements; we just had one view. Ellen White did not have her own private view on this question.

It's beyond credibility that Ellen White would remain silent on a vital issue like this while hundreds of sermons were being preached on the subject (many in her hearing), papers being published in our papers, and so forth. She endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh" which made the specific point that Christ took our flesh with its tendencies to sin. She referred to it in terms of "truth unmingled by error."



Here's something from A. T. Jones



Jesus Christ denied Himself. He took our nature, with all of its liabilities, including an inclination to do one's own will instead of the Father's will, but Christ denied Himself, and did always those things which pleased His Father. Christ "pleased not Himself (Romans 15:3)."



Christ took our sinful nature, but never sinned. That's how the SDA's of the 19th century put it.



It should be obvious to you that I'm not in the historic camp. I know many who are not in the historic camp who see things similarly to me.

It's really quite simple. We have much better evidence than the Baker letter which suggests that Ellen White could not have had the views that your interpretation is suggesting, which I've mentioned above.



What I just mentioned is one. Another is that we don't know the circumstances involving Baker, which is why her counsel to consider her published works is good counsel. It's too easy to misunderstand the intent of a private letter.

A third reasonable argument is that it makes no sense that Ellen White would write a private letter to an obscure individual in the light of a what would be a very public problem involving prominent SDA's.

One thing we can know for sure, whatever Baker was presenting it could not have been the same thing that Jones, Waggoner and Prescott were presenting. It had to be some different idea.



Are you saying that Christ was not of Adam's posterity? She did not write, "Because of sin, Adam's posterity, except for Christ, were born with inherent propensities of disobedience." This is just one of the issues related to the Baker letter. Again, we have much better evidence as to what her views on this issue were because we know how her contemporaries understood her.



She could not have remained silent while Haskel publicly quoted her incorrectly in regards to the Holy Flesh issue. That would not have been ethical. She herself wrote:



Your suggestion seems to be that Ellen White would write a private letter to an obscure worker emphasizing how important it was that he state things in a certain way, while ignoring prominent figures in our church who were saying the same thing. That dog won't hunt. Can you imagine Baker reading Haskell's article in the Review and Herald by Haskell, with Haskell saying the same thing he was yet receiving no comment from her? Obviously, it would be far more important to correct people like Haskell, Jones, Waggoner and Prescott, if they were in error, then Baker.

Can you cite some example where Ellen White corrected an obscure person on some issue, but let the exact same issue slide for a more prominent one? This certainly smacks of favoritism, something which Ellen White strove against.



Did she say we are born with a taint of sin?

This whole exercise seems a bit pointless. We know what her views were because we have the testimony of her peers.



I'm not following you. Satan claimed that the sons and daughters of Adam could not keep the law. Christ proved him to be a liar by taking our fallen nature and perfectly keeping the law. That's what the statement I quotes says, doesn't it?

Tom, we have gone through all this before, so I won’t discuss about Prescott, Waggoner and Jones. (Sorry, I know you had a lot of work to gather all those quotes.) So I’ll just comment on a few points.


It’s futile for Jones to declare that Christ didn’t have a sinful mind, because there is no selfishness in our body, just in our mind. Therefore, I see no other conclusion possible according to this view except that selfishness was present in the mind of Christ.


Not just with a taint, she said we are born in sin.


Satan claimed man – both before and after the fall – couldn’t keep the law. But man – whether before or after the fall – can only keep the law if he is in union with divinity, connected to God, a partaker of divine nature. The difference after the fall is that man lost his connection with God, which is only restored at conversion.

Mike,

I don't know if this contaminates my character, but what I do know is that when I become aware of a selfish impulse/attitude/thought, I realize how depraved my heart is, and ask God to change it.

Since I like practical examples, I'll tell you what happened this week. We were at church on Wednesday when, close to the end of the meeting, it suddenly began to rain heavily. Some sisters were there who didn’t have a car. I knew I ought to take them home, but – shame on me - I didn’t feel like going out of my way to take them home. The sin was not in the temptation (the appeal to not go), but in my lack of love, in my selfishness. I see here four options:
1) I could have fallen into the temptation and chosen not to go, and this would have been selfish.
2) I could have chosen to go because I didn’t want others to have a bad impression about me, but I would still go reluctantly and this would still have been selfish.
3) I could have chosen to go out of a sense of Christian duty, and I wouldn’t have acted out my selfishness (but I would still go somewhat reluctantly).
4) I could have chosen to go out of love (if I wasn't selfish - this option is just hypothetical in this specific situation, in my case).

(Someone else took the initiative first and drove them home.)

Now, I don’t think Christ would ever feel reluctant to drive these sisters home, nor that He would do this just out of a sense of Christian duty, but I believe that He would do it out of love for them. So I believe that’s why the devil had to tempt Him with the perversion of good impulses, since he could find no selfish impulses in Christ's heart (mind) to appeal to.