To become a part of the mind, Christ would have had to have at some point refused to deny Himself. But He never did this, so He retained "the mind of Christ."



This seems to me to be an incredibly fanciful viewpoint to take. You're suggesting she took a course of action which was foreign to her way of doing things. She was very direct in meeting error, regardless of the circumstances. I could cite countless examples of this.

She wrote:



Your idea would have her acting contrary to her own advice on this point. Rather than correct Haskell and Waggoner in using an unsound argument to combat an opponent, you have her countenancing what they did.

It also has her specifically endorsing a sermon in the strongest terms whose subject and contents were presenting a view that she disagreed with!



I don't think it would have made any difference at all. She said Christ took our sinful nature, and that doesn't make any difference.



Not because God condemns them.

You seem to be saying that babies need a Savior because God condemn their sinful nature, thereby making God the causative factor in their needing a Savior. I'm saying that they need a Savior for other reasons, and that God's view on the matter (e.g. condemnation) is not the cause of their need, but a recognition of it.



This is not an argument that appeals to human beings. I've never met a single person who believes that it is not possible for holy angels nor unfallen beings to keep the law.

However, I have met many people who question whether fallen man can keep the law.



You mean "sinful nature," not "selfish nature." Ellen White says that Christ took our sinful nature. If He did not take our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are. That's what she argued.

You take her argument to mean that if Christ had not taken the nature of a man (any man, fallen or unfallen), then He could not have been tempted as man (any man, fallen or unfallen) is tempted. But, once again, you are suggesting an argument that answers a question nobody has. Nobody doubts that Christ took the nature of a man (as opposed to, for example, that of a giraffe?), but people do question whether Christ took *our* nature, that is, the nature of a fallen man.

In regards to her response to the letters she was receiving, she was preaching along side of Jones and Waggoner who preached on righteousness by faith, arguing that because Christ took our fallen nature, He made it possible for us to obey the law. That her response to the questions which she received was due to what people had heard from Jones and Waggoner's sermons needs to be taken into account.

They preached that Christ took our fallen nature. That's why she received letters questioning this. They weren't preaching that Christ was tempted like we are, but they He took our fallen nature. She gave, as an argument for why J&W were correct in asserting that Christ took our fallen nature that this was necessary in order for Him to be tempted as we are.

So, in your opinion, when we receive selfishness as an inheritance we don't receive it in the mind?


If this was the case, why did she wait some 50 years to correct the error of arianism, and after she did it, she didn’t correct those who remained in the error?


Who said she considered this a fundamental article of faith? Not even the Trinity was considered a fundamental article of faith.


Which reasons?


Come on, Tom. Every day we hear the argument that God’s law was abolished (if it wasn’t faulty, it wouldn’t need to be abolished).


Well, it’s the selfish nature we have to battle against.

“Men are selfish by nature. They act from impulse, without reference to the will of God.” {RH, January 6, 1891 par. 7}

“If you will battle against selfish human nature, you will go steadily forward in the work of overcoming hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong.” SW, February 23, 1904 par. 3}


Wrong. Many people think that, even as a man, He was not capable of yielding to temptation, because He was also God. And it’s this that Ellen White is referring to.

“He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. ... To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 182.1-3}

Because of our nature, we have tendencies to sin, including being selfish. When we give way to those tendencies, they enter our mind. Christ always denied Himself, and resisted all inherited tendencies to sin, so they never entered His.



You're disagreeing that Ellen White was direct in meeting error? Here's something else she wrote:



I believe she followed her own counsel.

In regards to your question, this is a whole separate difficult discussion (in terms of the Trinity and SDAism), but I question your premise that EGW waited 50 years before correcting people regarding the Trinity.



She did. The context is the message of justification by faith which Jones and Waggoner presented. There were those who doubted the importance of the message, not considering it one of the pillars of the faith. She responded that justification by faith is the third angels message in verity.

Both the divinity and humanity of Christ were fundamental to the message Jones and Waggoner presented of righteousness by faith.

The following brings out the importance of Jesus' humanity:





The other reasons don't matter to my point. Here's what I wrote:

"Not because God condemns them.

You seem to be saying that babies need a Savior because God condemn their sinful nature, thereby making God the causative factor in their needing a Savior. I'm saying that they need a Savior for other reasons, and that God's view on the matter (e.g. condemnation) is not the cause of their need, but a recognition of it."

The point I'm making is that God's view on the matter does not create the reality of the situation, which is that babies need a Savior. Rather, God's view on the matter is a recognition of the fact that babies need a Savior (for whatever reason).

If it were simply a matter of God's condemning sinful nature, God could simply choose not to condemn it, and then babies wouldn't need a Savior (under what you looked to be saying). I'm saying the underlying cause would still exist, independent of whether God condemned sinful nature or not.



This isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the possibility of keeping the law, not that it was abolished by the cross. That's a different argument which doesn't involve Christ's human nature.

The argument that people make is that we cannot keep the law because of our fallen natures. If Christ had taken our fallen nature, He would have fallen too. That's what those who wrote to Ellen White were arguing:



This is not arguing that Christ could not have had the nature of a man in general, but of a fallen man, because nobody argues that Adam could not keep the law. The argument is that we, fallen human beings, because of our fallen natures cannot keep the law.



Wrong what? Writing "wrong" is not helpful at all. If you disagree with something, please just write out what you disagree with.



The context doesn't bear this out. She wrote:



She wrote that people had been saying:

Christ could not have taken man's nature.

Why?

Because then He would have fallen under similar temptations as us.

This is the same argument people make today. Christ could not have taken the fallen nature of Adam, because then He would need a Savior too. This is what people say.

Please keep in mind that the context of her response, "Letters have been coming to me ..." has to do with the sermons of righteousness by faith which Jones and Waggoner were presenting. In their presentation of righteousness by faith, the fact that Christ took our fallen nature was a central feature. It makes perfect sense that people would hear this and wonder about it, because it wasn't a common idea. So they made the point that if Christ had taken our nature, He would fallen under similar temptations.

She responded that if Christ had not taken our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are, and could not have been our example. What nature is she talking about? Fallen human nature. That's the only thing that makes sense, because nobody doubts that Christ took human nature.

She did not write, "Letters have been coming to me affirming that Christ could not have been tempted" but "Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man ..."

Also, whenever Jones and Waggoner spoke of how Christ could be tempted as we are, their point was always that this was the case because Christ took our fallen human nature. EGW had to be responding to something that Waggoner and Jones actually preached. Your suggestion doesn't tie back to what they preached.

Tom, in light of the following dialog, what do you believe about the difference between 1) our old man heart, 2) our the new man heart, 3) our sinful flesh nature, and 4) the heart and nature of Jesus.


I asked Rosangela if the clamorings of fallen flesh nature contaminate character, and she answered, I don't know. Then she switched gears and spoke about depraved hearts.

She believes the origin of selfish impulses, attitudes, thoughts is a depraved heart. She does not believe sinful flesh nature can generate or communicate them.

You, on the other hand, believe something different, right? But I'm not sure what you believe. What is the difference between a depraved, unregenerate heart and sinful flesh nature? Or, are they one and the same thing?

Also, what is the difference between our old heart and the new heart Jesus implants when we are born again? Do we retain our old man heart after we are born again, after Jesus implants the new heart?

And, how does all this relate to the human heart and human nature of Jesus?

If selfishness is not in the mind, the only other possibility is that it is in the body. I completely disagree with this view.


It depends on what you define as “error,” and the importance she attributed to it, as in the case of the Trinity. She said,

“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” - RH, December 20, 1892


OK. It was essential that Christ took human nature – He had to be a man to redeem the human race. He must be subject to temptation, as man is, in order to overcome temptation united with divinity and bring him power. But what is the basis for saying He had to take the selfish tendencies of human nature?


Maybe, but I want to know what they are.


Of course. He condemns selfishness, doesn’t He? How can He approve what constitutes the essence of sin? If we receive selfishness as an inheritance, it is only natural that He condemns this inheritance.


The following is I think the third parallel passage I quote. When will you believe?

“But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and therefore we cannot overcome as He overcame. But this is not true; "for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. . . . For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Christ knows the sinner's trials; He knows his temptations. He took upon Himself our nature; He was tempted in all points like as we are. ... Those who claim that it was not possible for Christ to sin, cannot believe that He took upon Him human nature. Christ was actually tempted, not only in the wilderness, but all through his life. In all points He was tempted as we are, and because He successfully resisted temptation in every form, He gave us a perfect example.”{BEcho, November 1, 1892 par. 6, 7}

The ideas which are common in all the quotes, including yours, are: 1)Christ’s human nature, b) His possibility of yielding to temptation, or sinning, and 3) that He is a perfect example. The quote you mention was written in 1890, the quote from my previous post was also written in 1890, this article was written in 1892 – all from the same period. (I didn't verify the date of the first parallel quote I posted.)

The mind has to do with one's governing principle. The brain allows one to think. When you say, "the body," this encompasses the brain.

Christ took our nature, which is to say He had brains like ours, with brain stems like ours. These tendencies "bubbled up" to Christ's mind, like they do for the rest of us, but He never said "yes" to them. He always denied Himself. He "please not Himself" (Rom. 15:3)



I completely agree with the thought she expresses in her last paragraph.

My point in regards to the quotation I cited speaking of the importance of sound arguments when meeting error is that they (Ellen White, Stephen Haskell) were meeting the error of the Holy Flesh by arguments. She said:



You are saying this counsel does not apply in the case of the Holy Flesh because Christ's human nature was not a fundamental article of faith. Therefore she was OK with Haskell's countering their ideas with arguments which were unsound and to misquote her writings in so doing.

I don't see this as a possibility. I believe she had to much integrity to allow this. I believe she would have corrected Haskell both in relation to misquoting her, and in regards to the argument that he was using, so that sound arguments would be used. I believe this is in perfect harmony with her counsel. I think your idea that it's OK to use unsound arguments for anything other than what you consider to be fundamental articles of faith is not a good principle to go by.



I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Here's an explanation:



Does that answer your question?



To name one, if Christ had not agreed to be our Savior, the human race would not have lasted past Adam, and their wouldn't be any babies around to save.



He condemns selfish choices or decisions. He does not condemn us for selfish tendencies we have passed to us biologically. That would hardly be fair, as we have no control over that.



I'm not sure what you're saying here. By not approving, do mean simply that God sees a sinful nature as something not desirable? If so, I agree. If you mean that it is something which causes one which has such a nature to be condemned, then I would ask how you understand the fact that Christ took our sinful nature:



What would this mean, for example?

To reiterate my main point, regarding what you said regarding babies, it is this:





Believe what?

What you're quoting in the "parallel passage" is not applicable to this situation where Ellen White was responding to letters about what Jones and Waggoner were preaching. You have to tie back her comments to something that Jones and Waggoner preached, because she was responding to questions that arose as a result of their preaching.

How do you do that?

Here's what I hear you saying.

"This is Ellen White's argument. People had questions as to how Jesus could fall to temptation because Christ was divine. They thought that because He was divine, He could not be overcome by temptation. In order to show this was a wrong idea, Ellen White emphasized that Christ was also a human being, and so could be tempted, and could fall, just like any other human being."

I understand this argument, and understand how you could apply this to the 11/1/92 article you cited. However, how can you apply this argument to a statement that says:



What is being questioned is this:

a.Man did not have the same nature as man

because

b.then He would have been overcome by temptation like we are.

So what nature is this talking about? It can only be fallen nature, because nobody questions that Christ had the nature of a man.

I'm sorry we seem to be talking past each other, but I'm not understanding what you are understanding this sentence to mean (the one quoted above). Do you understand it to mean, "Letters have been coming to me affirming that Christ could not have been overcome by temptation because He was divine"? That seems to be how your are understanding it. But that's not what it says.

Perhaps you could phrase what you think the sentence means in some other way so I can see how you are understanding it.

Now, Tammy...: she didn't differ with her contemporary church leaders on the humanity of Christ. That she agreed with them and they with her on church & Bible teaching is the simplest reason for why we generally quote her written statements as the published SOP: it has been documented (Touched with Our Feelings, available from the ABC) that on the humanity of the Saviour there was official, literary, unanimous agreement in her day.

"Muddying the waters" started in 1949, not during Ellen's life time: the word "sinful" in reference to Christ's human nature was removed from its context of explaining the incarnation, in the 1949 revision of Bible Readings for the Home Circle. That was the first official literary dissonance in our church history.

As for this long forgotten Baker letter - and Sister White only allowed her published writings to be used in building the church generally, it does indeed agree with her uses of "tendencies" and "propensities" and "corruption". In our individual life time and character building, inclinations and habits are, respectively, synonymous with the first two, and the corollary of the latter is the third word. Tendencies do not corrupt us by themselves: they must be acted on for that to happen; propensities are the side-effect of personal corruption. What we get from our parents affects our sinful inclinations/tendencies as obvious, hereditary baggage for our nature, about which there is little dispute among us - I hope!!

In this letter she wrote that "corruption never rested on him". His assumed sinful humanity (wording in SOP that is indisputable) never experienced corruption: WOW! It is paramount that we generally distinguish in our nature - and as believers: sinful flesh, sinful mind, "mind of Christ", character. Character depends on what the mind opts for in the flesh, as we make moral choices.

Do we have both the sinful and "mind of Christ" as believers? Yes, for the sinful mind is only eradicated when we are changed into immortality. Yet, having our selfish, sinful minds due to our past as sinners, we opt by grace through faith for the Spirit of Jesus' leading which is utilising & experiencing the "mind of Christ". How else(..., Tom,...: you haven't spoken directly to this "sinful mind" point, yet) are we temptable at all as believing, sinful humans? That we are called to follow Jesus, and as we learn to follow him more closely, spells starvation to our sinful mind and flesh: is not this starvation the suffering which Jesus is said to have undergone in that he "learned obedience by suffering".

Jesus' merits are our example as he fits us for walking into eternity should the Father wish us not to see death; all other believers still follow Jesus' example and there is strictly no limit to spiritual growth in perfecting Christlikeness - as he defines and fashions it, except as we set limits - do we allow him to do as much as he wants...even ridding us of all our sinful character traits while we yet possess sinful nature. That is of course the point at which we each say either,"Amen!" or ,"Impossible!" for whatever reason we disagree with such spiritual heights of Godliness for ourselves.

I'll stop there, for that is the meaning and context in EGW's writings for "tendency", "propensity" and character "corruption", for Jesus and us. Her response to that spiritual challenge & calling was (actually!) unequivocally,"Amen!"

You don't think so, eh?

On condemned human nature, Tom, no-one ever said that God condemns us for our human natures, but that human nature is condemned by its own sinfulness. "Condemned" here refers only to the death that comes from unbelief in the face of God's grace in Christ.

I know you don't like God being made to look like he's taking the blame for sin and its effects, but, since we opt for sin and Lucifer did before us on his own volition, God's response to our choice is justly, holy and rightly expressly to condemn sinful human nature. Doesn't taint his character; just clarifies & glorifies his character, since he gave us his only begotten Son to save us from ourselves and our natures - two separate but simultaneous tasks.

Colin, nice post. Regarding your "sinful mind" question, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did Christ have the "sinful mind" that you are talking about?

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Could you try again?

I offered no opinion one way or the other regarding whether or not God condemns sinful human nature. My point was that it is not God's condemnation of human nature which causes babies to need Saviors.



Again, I was careful not to offer an opinion as to whether or not God's condemns human nature, as before I could do so I would have to know what one meant by the phrase. However, regardless of this point, my point was that it is not because God condemns human nature that babies need Saviors. God's condemnation would be due to a recognition on God's part of the reality of the situation, a recognitional thing as a opposed to a causitive thing.