How would God's causing life to abound require babies to need a Savior?



From EGW:



S. N. Haskell quoted this, and commented: "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

I looked at EGW's statements regarding "depraved nature," and it was not clear to me if she had in mind what solely that which we receive from Adam. I notice she writes:



I see Webster's lists "corrupt" as the synonym for "depraved," and gives the following as synonyms for "corrupt"

"debased, debauched, decadent, degenerate, degraded, demoralized, depraved, dissipated, dissolute, perverse, perverted, reprobate, warped"

It lists as related words "crooked, cutthroat, dishonest, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous; contaminated, spoiled, tainted; bad, evil, immoral, iniquitous, nefarious, sinful, vicious, wicked"

A couple of these EGW applies to Christ's human nature, including "degraded," and "sinful." She speaks of "evil tendencies," "corrupt principles," and "tendencies to evil" in relation to the human nature Christ assumed. However, usually, with most of the terms I mentioned, she associates these terms in a way which implies participation in sin. So we need to be very careful in how we use terms to not give the impression Christ sinned.

Here's a simple principle we can follow. Whatever our human nature is that we receive from Adam (not including any participation in sin by ourselves), that's what Christ received. The ladder which reaches from heaven to fallen man could not fail by a single run, which was understood to mean that Christ took "fallen nature with all its hereditary inclinations."



"Selfishness" can be speaking of an inherited inclinations, which Christ, by taking our nature, also took. But I would feel very uncomfortable, myself, calling this nature "depraved." It appears to me you are mixing together ideas which should be kept separate. There is selfishness which is due to one's participation in sin, and tendencies to being selfish, which is passed by heredity. Since we have no control over our heredity, it is not reasonable to suppose that God would condemn us for something outside of our control. The following comes to mind:



So condemnation comes when light is rejected, which clearly would not apply in the case of babies.

However, I hasten to add that I'm not at all sure what it is you were wanting to say. I could easily be misunderstanding you here. I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent your view.



I don't believe it is possible for God to not condemn depravity, if depravity includes deliberately acting contrary to the principles of His government.



I'm not really understanding this. It's not "better," IMO, it's the only possibility. God cannot deny Himself, and to accept selfishness as a valid alternative would be to deny Himself. It's not that God could have created a universe where selfishness was a viable principle, but chose not to, because He viewed the alternative of unselfishness as superior, but there was never any such possibility.

In the Desire of Ages, EGW speaks of the "law of life" for the universe, which she likens to a "circuit of beneficence". She illustrates this by water, which falls from the clouds, runs to the sea by rivers, and returns to the clouds. The circuit is characterized by receiving from God and giving to others. This is the law of life for the universe.

Selfishness, OTOH, receives from God, but does not give back in return, neither to God nor others. This is the law of sin and death. Selfishness is not death because God decided that things would be better this way, but because it is not the "law of life." If it's not the law of life, it's death.

God recognizes and warns us that selfishness is death, but He does not make this so.



This looks to be saying that God's existence causes depravity. I can't believe this is what you actually mean.



That He can be accused of it is certain, because that's exactly what Satan has done. However, it's a false accusation, for Satan is the author of sin and all its results.

Yes. God will only take people to heaven, whether babies, adults or whatever stage, that will be happy there. Because of its parents influence, a baby can be unfit for heaven. EGW speaks of this in 3SM 313 and following. I think page 315 may have the statement I have in mind.

You say babies have no sin, no condemnation, and no frown of God. Yet, some babies will be unfit for heaven? Sinless, yet cannot be happy in heaven? How so? What else, other than sin, makes one unfit for the companionship of holy beings?

God's abundant life is not the problem; that's the good part. The sinner's inability to commune with God is the problem, causing the need of a Savior. Any person who cannot stand in the presence of God as-is needs a Savior.

Selfishness is incompatible with God's presence, and therefore, incompatible with life since He is the source of life. Anyone who is incompatible with life needs a Savior.

Parse the sentence. What is caused by God's existence is the "reality." And the "reality" is that selfishness always kills.

Using SOP to define the SOP, we find that EGW said, "Selfishness is the essence of depravity." We can find many synonyms in a dictionary or thesaurus which may or may not apply. The safe way is to let inspiration define inspiration.

Jesus took our nature, fallen, but not corrupted. That's a pretty good lighthouse to keep us on the right path. She said His nature was not corrupted. She also said that our natures are depraved.


Has there been a group within Adventism that taught that Christ sinned? You seem to be very concerned that we don't confuse people on that point. But I don't see any confusion there at all.

You also bring this up every time it is pointed out that Paul put homoioma in Rom 8:3, rather than just making the plain statement that Jesus came in sinful flesh, if that was what he really meant. (I'm a big proponent of "say what you mean.")


Well, the last time my ladder's rungs only went down to hereditary tendencies, I was still in diapers. So if Jesus only went down as far as hereditary tendencies, He can't help me where I am today. To top it off, He only had 4000 years' worth of bad heredity to deal with, while I have 6000. The great law of heredity limits the damage to His heredity to only about 67% of mine.

But the quote says "Christ reaches us where we are." It does not say that Christ reaches us where we were when we were born. In addition, it would be a great stretch to say that my mother was favored of heaven when I was conceived, since she was in willful violation of God's revealed will. Furthermore, unlike Him, my inclinations do include those that result from personal participation in sin. So I see this emphasis on Christ's heredity as a misguided and futile attempt to make His ladder reach down far enough.

The key is not His hereditary inclinations. As I have previously shown, that accounts for less than 1% of what He dealt with. If His ladder truly reaches us where we are, then you guys need to get past His heredity and see more fully what He experienced.

In short, I most definitely and vehemently disagree with the idea that the ladder which reaches from heaven to fallen man, that could not fail by a single rung, is to be understood to mean that Christ took "fallen nature with all its hereditary inclinations."

This is the same thing I've been saying, isn't it? Selfishness leads to death, and God recognizes this reality. God is not the causative factor here, but selfishness.

Arnold, does "nature", as it relates to human nature, always mean the same thing in the SOP? Doesn't it mean different things depending on the context? For example, sometimes it refers to internally generated sinful clamorings, unholy thoughts and feelings that strive for the mastery. At other times it refers to character. Sometimes, though, it refers to form, the innocent and legitimate needs communicated by internal organs. It also can refer to the will, the power of choice.

Wouldn't these differences have a bear on what Sister White means when she uses the word "nature" in a particular quote or context, especially as it relates to Jesus' human nature? In the following quote she says Jesus took our form and our nature. In this case nature does not refer to bone, body, and blood.

"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan’s temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted. (4aSG 115)

In the next two quotes nature is in contrast to the nature of angels. His nature was perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. In this case it cannot refer to form since it was defiled by sin. But it could refer to character.

"His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own. (3SM 129)

"He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. (16MR 181)

In the next three quotes nature means Jesus inherited the same tendencies and temptations we do. He had to deal with the same problems we do. He was tempted from within and from without in the same way and for the reasons we are. He had no advantage over us. If His nature communicated sinless desires and suggestions He would have had an advantage not available to us. Instead, He had to rely on the same heavenly tools we do because He possessed the same inherited tendencies and temptations we do.

"Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. (OHC 48)

"If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was “in all points tempted like as we are.” Heb. 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God. (DA 24)

"If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter. The work of Christ was to take from the claims of Satan his control of man, and He could do this only in the way that He came – a man, tempted as a man, rendering the obedience of a man. (7BC 930)

If Jesus possessed Adam's pre-fall sinless nature there would have been no reason for Him to partake of the divine nature. Like Adam, He would have possessed the tools necessary to form a perfect character without having to partake of the divine nature. The reason Jesus had to partake of the divine nature like we do is due to the fact He could not form a perfect character with the nature He inherited.

My point in listing the synonyms is that some of the synonyms were used in certain ways, while others were used in other ways. Specifically, some could be used just to point to the equipment itself, such as "sinful," "defiled," and "degraded." Others she didn't use that way, but used to imply participation in sin.

Christ took the same equipment we have, with the inherited inclinations, but never sinned. So the synonyms she used which imply participation in sin ("depraved" may be one she used this way) should not be applied to one's biological human nature.



This was understood to mean that He took our sinful nature, but never sinned.



Because He never sinned.



We have sinned.



Haskell addresses the difficult being referred to:



So yes, this is a real problem to be concerned about.



Well, people can be confused by it, as Haskell points out.



Paul did say what he meant, which is why he used a word which means "like" instead of a word which means "different." Paul's meaning is that Christ came in sinful flesh like ours. Similarly Paul said:



As "likeness of mean" means Christ was a man, so "likeness of sinful flesh" means Christ had sinful flesh. This is what SDA's understood. For example:





My point was that EGW's contemporaries understood her to be saying this. They have an advantage over us, in that they were contemporaries of Ellen White, and they communicated with each other.

Now that she is dead, we can advance any theory we wish, and she cannot correct us. Not so with Haskell, who quoted The Desire of Ages, and interpreted EGW as saying that Christ took fallen humanity with all its inherited inclinations. She had every opportunity to correct him regarding her views. It strains things to the point of incredulity to think that she would allow Haskell to publicly misquote her and advance unsound arguments, given both her character and her counsel regarding such matters.

Those who lived and worked with her understood her words in a certain way. You, who live roughly 100 years later have an idea that her words had a meaning that none of her contemporaries understood. You are advancing an unlikely theory.

Let's take any historical figure, say Abraham Lincoln, as an example. Let's say there's some phrase Lincoln used which could be understood by us, over 1000 years later, in more than one way. But all of his contemporaries understood that phrase to mean a certain thing. Clearly a theory that would have Lincoln's phrase being correctly understood by people who lived more than a century after his death but misunderstood by his contemporaries would have to be viewed as suspect.

"Sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" was understood by SDA's and non-SDA's alike to mean a nature with tendencies to sin. Ellen White said that Christ took our sinful nature. Her contemporaries understood her to teach that Christ took a nature with tendencies to sin, and she knew that her contemporaries understood her to be teaching this, and she used language which, had it been used by anyone else, would have meant that Christ had inherited tendencies to sin. Putting this all together, one wonders how there is room open for an interpretation of her writings that would have Christ taking a nature without tendencies to sin. If that were the case, why would EGW say that Christ took our sinful nature, a phrase understood to mean a nature with tendencies to sin? If she really believed Christ didn't take inherited tendencies to sin, she couldn't have used language any less clear than "sinful nature."

Would you include physical predispositions as tendencies to sin? For example, the heredity of some children predisposes them to alcoholism more than the average. Do you include that?

I think a strong argument can be made that such physical factors count as tendencies to sin. EGW and her contemporaries could very well have taken such things into account when they wrote.

However, that is not my focus when it comes to the similarities/differences between Christ's nature and ours. Like us, He surely bore some physical damage. He probably bore mental damage like the rest of fallen humanity. But did He suffer moral damage like us?

If He was not morally damaged, as the rest of us are, then no matter what, He was significantly different. Moreover, He was different in the most important aspect of life.

If He was morally damaged, as we are, then one could say that His nature was the same as ours. The only difference would be in the magnitude of the damage.

But if you would argue that His example of victory depends on having the same strength of propensity toward sin, then He would have to be the most damaged man there ever was or will be.

I say that Jesus was not morally damaged in any way. Would you agree with that?