This doesn't make any sense to me. It's futile for Jones to declare that Christ didn't have a sinful mind?! Isn't that what you believe? And the reason why it's futile for Jones to declare that Christ didn't have a sinful mind is because there is no selfishness in our body? This can't possibly be what you meant to say.



The first part of your argument looks to be inaccurately stated, so I can't comment on the conclusion.



We're not discussing Prescott, Waggoner, and Jones (and Haskell), but Ellen White's view. I quoted from them to show how she was understood by her peers. This certainly has far greater weight than any private letter could have.

Ellen White did not exist in a vacuum. It's simply unrealistic to suppose that she could have sat idly by while Haskell quoted from the Desire of Ages and gave to her words a meaning which she had already condemned. It's equally unrealistic to suppose she would say to Baker, "Be exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ" but not give a hoot when (excluding herself) the most prominent representatives of the church presented the same ideas. How would Baker feel to see Haskel *quoting* from Ellen White, and presenting the same views he (Baker) was presenting, without Ellen White calling Haskell to task? Also, how can we imagine that Ellen White would resort to dishonesty in fighting against the Holy Flesh movement?

I should explain this last point. In the Holy Flesh movement, they held that in regards to taking a fallen nature that Christ took a fallen physical and deteriorated human body only.

Haskell wrote to Ellen White the following:



Now there were two way which this false theology could be attacked. One would be the following:

a.The HF people were correct in regards to their assertions regarding Christ's human nature, but not in regards to their conclusion that we need to partake of a special experience to obtain a sinless human nature, as our human nature will only be changed at Christ's Second Coming.

b.The HF people were incorrect in their assertion regarding Christ's human nature, as well as being incorrect in their assertion regarding our needing a special experience to obtain a nature like that of Adam before the fall (in fact, the reason why they were incorrect in their assertion that we needed a nature like that of Adam's before the fall is precisely because Christ took our fallen nature).

They (including Ellen White) chose b. Now how could she choose b, if in reality she believed a? It would be dishonest for her to sit by and listen to Haskell, Waggoner and others denounce teachings of the Holy Flesh as false (i.e., what their teachings in relation to Christ's human nature), when she, in her heart, knew they were true.



I take it by your response here that you are acknowledging that she didn't say that we are born with a taint of sin.

I'm curious, do you believe that Ellen White believed in original sin?



MM said that one of the reasons Christ became a man was to demonstrate that born again sinners can obey the law perfectly. You denied this. This seems curious to me, as she affirmed that we can keep the law so often. Obviously we have to be born again to do so. So how could MM's point be false?

In your first denial of what MM wrote, you produced a statement which said



MM asked you:



(MM actually wrote "post-fall" instead of "pre-fall," but this is an obvious typo, so I corrected it). MM's questions are well taken. There are many, many statements where EGW makes the point that Jesus Christ demonstrated that we, fallen man, can keep the law. That unfallen man could keep the law isn't the issue. Who could imagine that God would so goof up His creation of man that He would create a creature unable to obey Him? How can this make sense? Let's think about this.

God sets down to create man. He's already created millions of worlds, with trillions of beings who are obeying Him. Now He's going to create man. But somehow He goofed, so that this particular creature is unable to obey Him. That's not a credible theory, is it?

Now the question of whether we, in our fallen condition, can keep the law *is* a vital issue. This is very much in doubt, as the sin in our world, and amongst professed Christians, testifies. Is it possible for fallen man to keep the law? That's a valid, interesting question.

Ellen White affirms that Jesus Christ proved that *fallen* man can keep the law. How did He do that? By taking our fallen nature and perfectly obeying the law. She made this argument many times. The quote I cited used Romans 8:3, 4 to make this argument.

A couple of questions come to mind. First of all, you believe that we are born with inherited tendencies to sin, but Christ was not (please correct any misrepresentations of your views). Yet Ellen White affirms that Christ demonstrated that we can perfectly obey God's law. How so? If He had no inherited tendencies to sin, and we do, we could validly claim that He only demonstrated that unfallen human beings (albeit tired, hungry and thirsty ones) with no inherited tendencies to sin could so, but not that humans such as we are could do so. We could use our sinful natures as an excuse, and there would be no response to that, since nothing Christ did (under the idea that Christ did not inherit tendencies to sin) would have proved otherwise.

A second question is in response to this statement by Ellen White:



Isn't the position of those who wrote these letters to her exactly the position that you hold? If not, what else could it have been? If so, why didn't Ellen White simply answer, "correct." Why did she defend the position that she and Jones and Waggoner were presenting, if it were no different than what those questioning her held?

[quote=Rosangela]
But if the initial impulse is nothing more than a temptation why would we need to ask God to change our heart? What does being tempted have to do with it? Jesus was tempted in all points like we are but He never prayed for God to cleanse or change His heart.

The problem isn't an impure or unholy heart; the problem is a fallen flesh nature that continually clamorings for sinful expression. Of course sinful flesh cannot commit a sin, but it certainly can and does beg and bug us to commit sin.

And, the implanted mind of the new man people receive when they experience rebirth does not silence the harassing voice of their fallen flesh nature. True, the new nature Jesus gives them empowers them to cooperate with heavenly agencies to recognize and resist the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated to their conscious new man mind. This is what Jesus demonstrated while here in sinful flesh.

Do you agree?

PS - I appreciate the practical example you shared. I would say your fallen flesh initially tempted you to be selfish and not give the ladies a ride home in the rain. The temptation did not become a sin until you acted on the sinful suggestion your sinful flesh communicated to you. Of course, repentance restores the relationship sin severs.

Amen!

I agree with Rosangela on this one. Our hearts are desperately wicked and deceitful. EGW writes:



I think the idea that Jesus never prayed for a change of heart, so we don't need to either is exceedingly dangerous.

She continues:



More of Christ and less of self. That's what we need.

Continuing:



The closer we come to Christ, the *more* we will recognize our sinfulness, not less. Our repentance will deepen.

This by no means implies that we need to or should sin. But even those closest to God (as EGW specifies) have the experience she lays out.

She describes the following as our prayer:



(all quotes from COL 159)

I love this last part. Makes me think there's hope for even me.

TE: I think the idea that Jesus never prayed for a change of heart, so we don't need to either is exceedingly dangerous.

MM: I agree. But I hope you aren't assuming that what's I said above. The new heart and mind Jesus implants when we are born again it is not desperately wicked and deceitful.

---

TE: More of Christ and less of self. That's what we need.

MM: All of Jesus and none of self - that's what Jesus is offering.

---

TE: The closer we come to Christ, the *more* we will recognize our sinfulness, not less. Our repentance will deepen. This by no means implies that we need to or should sin.

MM: Nor does it imply we are sinning ignorantly. Being aware of our sinfulness is not the same thing as sinning. It simply means we are aware of our sinful potential if we are not abiding in Jesus. People who are abiding in Jesus do not and cannot commit a known sin.

---

TE: "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self."

MM: This isn't saying we are sinning. It isn't saying save me with my sins. Immediately preceding this sentence she says, "Lord, take my heart; for I cannot give it. It is Thy property. Keep it pure, for I cannot keep it for Thee." God takes our heart and gives us a pure and holy heart in return. It is not an unchristlike, unholy heart.

Unfortunately, this sounds like a reiteration of the exceedingly dangerous idea.



This is just saying what I said.



She points out that at every step our repentance deepens, and that our renunciation of self deepens. The "save my from my unchristlike self" is speaking of the born-again believer! The closer we come to Chris, the more we recognize our sinfulness and our need for Him, not the less.



This experience is the experience of the born-again believer. "It is not only at the beginning of the Christian life that this renunciation of self is to be made."

Tom, where are your powers of deduction?
What I mean is, since he believes Christ took a selfish human nature, and this couldn’t mean He took a selfish human body, but could only mean a selfish human mind, how can he say Christ didn’t have a sinful mind?


Again, she must have had her reasons. Why did she write personal testimonies to some and not to others? Why did she sometimes correct those who presented views in disagreement with hers and sometimes she didn’t? We don’t know, so why speculate?


But in fact a is wrong. “He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden.” This obviously refers also to the body Christ took. They believed it was a special body, like that of Adam, and that after they had passed through “the garden experience” their body would become special, too. They even spoke about the elimination of gray hair and of the possibility of death after this experience.


No, she doesn’t say it, but if everybody was born without the taint of sin, why would she mention this about Christ? It would be a strange remark, like saying that Christ was born with two hands. Anyway, what would this mean? That Christ was born without having already sinned? How can someone be born having already sinned?


I think I should ask you this question. If you don’t believe someone can be born having already sinned, you must believe that the quote in question refers to the imputation of the sin of Adam.


The context is sufficient to establish that she refers to pre-fall sinless man in this quote:

“In heaven Satan had declared that the sin of Adam revealed that human beings could not keep the law of God, and he sought to carry the universe with him in this belief. Satan's words appeared to be true, but Christ came to unmask the deceiver. ... 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 115.1, 2}

It’s true that he also said this in relation to man after the fall, but because he claimed the whole race was under his control:

“The world's Redeemer passed over the ground where Adam fell because of his disobeying the expressed law of Jehovah; and the only begotten Son of God came to our world as a man, to reveal to the world that men could keep the law of God. Satan, the fallen angel, had declared that no man could keep the law of God after the disobedience of Adam. He claimed the whole race under his control.” {5MR 112.1}


Yes, sorry, I stand corrected.


But this is not a valid excuse, because Ellen White doesn’t seem to see any difference in this respect between pre-fall man and humans such as we are.

“Ministers of our time give from their pulpits license to sin, in saying to the sinner, that the law of God is not binding upon man, and that it is impossible for him to keep it. It was then impossible for Adam to keep God's law, and why should the punishment of transgression have fallen upon him?” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 16}

Notice that her argument is that if it’s impossible for us to obey the law, it was also impossible for Adam to do so. Of course this argument doesn’t make sense under your view.


What many evangelicals hold, that is, that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation (see DA 117 – I’ll not quote it for this post is already too long).

Tom, are you implying that after we pray for a new heart and mind that the one Jesus gives us when we experience rebirth is also desperately wicked and deceitful?


Do you agree it isn't saying Jesus saves us with our sins? Or, do you think it says Jesus saves us with our sins?


Yes, of course. But you seem to be implying this particular insight means born again believers continually discover hitherto unknown sinful behaviors, sinful habits the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to them until after they are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify them. This is what I'm disagreeing with.


Renunciating self is simply another way of saying we must keep the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh nature under the control of a sanctified will and mind. Jesus demonstrated how to subdue these types of inherited besetting sins. It in no way means the Holy Spirit keeps us in darkness and ignorance regarding certain sinful behaviors until the day He thinks we are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify them.

Jesus didn't demonstrate how unconverted sinners can obey the law. Instead, He demonstrated how born again believers can obey the law. There is a huge difference between sinners before and after rebirth. Jesus began life as a human in the same state born again believers begin their new life of partaking of the divine nature, walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man. He was born, as it were, born again. We begin at rebirth where He began at birth.

Jones didn't say anything about Christ taking a selfish human nature, did he? What Jones meant, and what he said, was that Christ took our human natures, with its inherited tendencies to sin. He expressed the same idea Haskell did, in commenting on the Desire of Ages passage he (Haskell) quoted:





There's no possible reason which would explain this behavior. This is why your suggested interpretation is not viable.

In regards to your questions as to why she wrote private testimonies to some and not to others, this is an apples to oranges comparison. She didn't treat important issues of doctrine this way. Every doctrinal issue was treated publicly, as it should be. Can you give even one example of an important doctrinal issue being treated by her writing a private letter? The suggestion doesn't even make sense. How would anyone know about? She would have to speak of it publicly, which is, indeed, what she did.



Not the salient point. If you look at how Haskell and Waggoner addressed the Holy Flesh movement fallacy, they argued against the idea that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall as having to do with our inherited tendencies to sin, not with having to do with grey hair. Again, we see Haskel *quoting* Ellen White, explaining her meaning to be that Christ took our fallen nature with its inherited tendencies to sin.



This is just another example of why it's such a poor idea to try to form doctrine out of a private letter! We don't know what Baker was teaching, so the question as to why Ellen White wrote the things she did to Baker is difficult to answer. However, she used the expression "taint of sin" many times, for example:





We see from this that she used the phrase to indicate actually sinning, not as having to do with our biological human nature. Perhaps her point may have been that taking our human nature does not result in one's having a taint of sin. In this way, she could emphasize that Christ was born into the human family like the rest of us, taking our natures, but still not have a taint of sin. Perhaps Baker was teaching that Christ had a taint of sin.



Ok, it's fine for you to ask me the question, but it would be nice if you would answer mine. I don't really follow what you're asking me, but in regards to the question I asked, no, I don't believe in original sin.

Regarding Satan's accusations that man could not keep the law, it simply makes no sense to interpret this as applying to man in his pre-fallen condition. Who would think that God could be so incompetent as to create a being who could not obey Him?



Of course she saw the difference. In the temptations in the wilderness, she emphasized that it was not as Adam stood in his innocence that Christ came, but after 4,000 years of sin. She wouldn't have emphasized this point if it made no difference.

That Adam, as he was created, could keep the law was never an issue. Who could suppose God to be so incompetent as to not be able to create a being that could obey Him? The issue was always whether we, fallen man, could keep the law. She was dealing with excuses that people make that the law cannot be kept, and showing why these arguments were false.



This isn't a question of human nature. Adam, before the fall, with an unfallen nature, could be (and was) overcome by temptation. Her comments had to do with Christ's human nature, so my question still stands. The position of those questioning her would have been the same as yours. If EGW's position were the same as yours, and different from Jones and Waggoner's, her response makes no sense.

The issue of which human nature Christ took is a very simple one. It can seem to be complicated with questions in regards to "propensities" and "taint" and other words and phrases EGW used, but the simple question comes down to one question:

Did the human nature Christ assumed have inherited tendencies to sin?

That SDA's during Christ's lifetime believed this is clear. Laying aside EGW for the moment (since her statements are what is under dispute) there is not one example of the idea that Christ's nature did not have inherited tendencies to sin present in any Adventist publication until 30 years after Ellen White died. One would have to believe that Ellen White secretly held the opposite view of every other church member, and kept this secret to her grace, except for Baker.

That SDA's believed Ellen White's position was that Christ assumed our fallen nature with its inherited tendencies is clear as well:



Everybody believes that Christ's human nature was one subject to hunger, thirst, weariness, and such like. The phrase "sinful human nature" as applied to Christ means one thing, and one thing only: inherited tendencies to sin.

This usage is not unique to SDA's. The phrase has always meant the same to SDA's or not SDA's.

Ellen White wrote:



The term "sinful nature" was (and is) universally understood to mean a nature with tendencies to sin. If what Ellen White had believed was that Christ took a human nature which had the ability to be hungry, thirsty, and tired, she would have written that Christ took a sinless human nature, just like others who have written on Christology have done.

In order to take the position that Ellen White really meant that Christ took a sinless human nature when she said that He took our sinful human nature, one would have to believe that:

a.She coined a completely new usage of the term "sinful nature"

AND

b.She never corrected anyone (except Baker, in a private letter) who misunderstood her meaning as being the same as that which every other person who had used the phrase had in mind.