The meaning is variable, to be determined by the context.

However, some statements are more definitive than others. When EGW describes the threefold nature of humanity, we need to see that as more foundational than when she says that Jesus came in our nature. We need to understand which are definitive and which are derivative. Confusion there will lead to confusion almost everywhere else.

Note that in such uses of "nature" by EGW, she tends to put in an exception clause. If Christ's nature was identical to ours in every way, the period would have come 6 words earlier.

But also notice that she doesn't always include the exception, as in the 3SM quote. In that case, the contrast is simply between human nature and angelic nature; the same contrast would be valid between Gabriel and unfallen Adam. The 16MR quote contrasts Christ's human nature with angelic nature, but with the clarification that there is a distinction between His nature and ours. Only when it can truly be said of us that we have no taint of sin can we say without reserve that Christ's nature was identical to ours.

Regarding your post #98834 (which I'll address in a separate post) we seem to be talking about different things. What I've been emphasizing is that the suggestion that Ellen White did not teach that Christ assumed our human nature, with all its inherited inclinations, is not viable because of historical considerations. You seem to be trying to parse her writings in a vacuum, as if Haskell, Prescott, Jones, Waggoner, and countless others did not exist.

I have pointed out that:

a.Ellen White wrote that letters had been coming to her, saying that Jesus could not have had our nature, because if He had then He would have fallen under similar temptations that we do. Given that she was preaching side by side with Jones and Waggoner, this can only be understood as teaching that Christ took our fallen nature in order to be tempted as we are, as fallen human beings. For example:



This is what was being taught, and what Ellen White defended.

b.Prescott preached a sermon entitled "The Word Became Flesh." The theme of the sermon was that Christ took sinful flesh, which he called "flesh of sin," flesh identical to our own. He emphasized this over and over again, over 30 times. He used this to argue that we could obey the law.

Ellen White endorsed this sermon in the strongest language.

c.When addressing the Holy Flesh teachings, Haskell wrote to EGW:



They could have decided to fight against this teaching by explaining simply that our nature does not change before death. But they didn't do this. Their starting point in fighting against it was by emphasizing that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall.

Haskell quoted from the Desire of Ages, and explained Ellen White's meaning as Christ came in our nature, "with all its inherited inclinations."

Assuming Ellen White disagreed with Haskell, where is the record of such a disagreement? How can one rationally suppose that Ellen White would accept an unsound argument like this when she wrote:



Waggoner also used this same argument before the 1901 GC session, which EGW attended.

d.Ellen White used language which could only have been interpreted by her contemporaries as meaning that Christ's inherited nature had tendencies to sin. This is demonstrated by the fact that they, in fact, understood her to be saying this.

She was aware of this.

It hardly seems reasonable to assume that she would use language to communicate an idea she knew would be interpreted incorrectly.

Regarding Christ and "taint of sin"



Christ came not with "confessions of sins to repentance" because He was "without the taint of sin." The human nature He assumed was "perfectly identical with our own" yet "without the taint of sin."

IOW, she is saying exactly the same thing as her contemporaries who emphasized that while Christ took a nature, or flesh, like ours, He never sinned in that nature. For example, W. W. Prescott, in the sermon "The Word Became Flesh" (which EGW strongly endorsed) said that Christ came in sinful flesh like ours, "flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, but flesh in which He did not sin."

Yes.



Yes, if by that you are referring to the human nature He assumed. That human nature was a sinful human nature, just like ours.



I'm not sure what you mean by morally damaged, but if you mean was the human nature He assumed like ours, the answer is yes. He accepted the working of the great law of heredity. What heredity passes to us, it passed to Him.

If Jesus possessed Adam's pre-fall sinless nature, or some other form of sinless nature, there would have been no reason for Him to partake of the divine nature. Like Adam, or some other sinless being, 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 and tools He inherited.

In the following quotes the word "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. Unlike us, though, He never turned His internal foes into sinful traits of character. Thus, Jesus was untainted by sin.

"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)

Arnold, I trust things are well with you and your family in regards to the passing of your father-in-law. You have been in my prayers.

I haven’t had much time to visit the forum, owing to a deadline to meet, and also owing to two surgeries I had to undergo because of a wisdom tooth that hadn’t come out. I’m still recovering. But Arnold did a fine job in replying to some points, so I’ll make just a few comments.


Well, she preached side by side with her husband and, if we believe at all what she said years later, she didn't believe in the shut-door theory, although it's well known that her husband and the rest of the Adventist group believed in it. She even used the expression "shut door" at that time, but evidently it must have had a different meaning for her and for him (them).
Not to mention that her husband died as a semi-arian, believed she had seen Jupiter and Saturn in the astronomy vision of 1846, and Joseph Bates, a close associate, wrote a book saying that Christ was going to come in 1851. She never corrected any of these wrong notions, and preached side by side with them. So, Ellen White's views and her contemporaries' views were not always the same, not even when they employed the same terms.


The problem is that if she had meant what you say, she would have contradicted herself in other passages she wrote. It’s curious you don’t seem to apply Occam’s razor to the Baker letter, to the phrase “born without a taint of sin,” etc.


After being alive, but before they sin, they still need a Savior.


This refers to a different circumstance. Condemnation in Romans 5 is in opposition to justification, which is not the case in this EGW quote. A five-minute-old baby needs a Savior, and if he needs a Savior it’s because he is condemned.


It’s not this that she says. She says, “If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper.”
This argument has nothing to do with the aspect of fallen nature, but it does have to do with the aspect of divinity/humanity mentioned in the other parallel quotes. In none of the quotes Ellen White mentions “fallen nature,” but just “human nature,” “man’s nature,” etc. She is writing about Christ’s human nature as opposed to His divine nature. She is not speaking at all about “fallen nature.”

1.Regarding Haskell, you have to believe, in your view:
a.She used a term she knew nobody in the world would understand but herself in "sinful nature." If she had simply said that Christ took a sinless human nature, that would have been clear; He would have had a nature that could become weary, hungry and thirsty, but one without tendencies to evil. Everyone would have understood that.
b.She didn't bother to correct Haskell when he misquoted her.
c.She didn't bother to correct Haskell (or Waggoner) when they presented unsound arguments in public, in the R&H and GC session, even though she had given specific counsel regarding the importance of not using unsound arguments when encountering opponents.

None of the things you mentioned, shut door, semi-arianism, are similar cases to what was happening here.

If Haskell (or anyone else) had quoted a work of hers, and interpreted it as saying "therefore Christ was not eternal, one with the Father" and used this as an argument to meet opponents, and she sat by and said nothing, I could see the point. But I'm not aware of a single incident in her life which would correspond to any of a, b, or c that I mentioned above.

2.Regarding the Baker letter, it seems clear to me that she made the same points she always did, which is that Christ took our fallen, sinful nature, but never sinned. Occam's razor which suggest her writing in that letter to be in harmony with what she had written before, and in harmony with the SDA position on the subject, since their was no disharmony regarding it. Occam's razor would certainly not suggest reinterpreting her view as being different than that which her contemporaries understood. The analogy I gave regarding Lincoln, to Arthur, illustrates this point.

I appreciate you were making this point somewhat tongue-in-cheek (smiley), but it's a valid question, and I think Occam's razor is a strong argument for interpreting the Baker letter to agree with the idea that Christ's inherited human nature had "all the inherited inclinations" of human nature, as Haskell interpreted her to say.



They couldn't continue to be alive without a Savior. "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life." Every water spring, every breath, is the purchase of His blood.

So not only would they never have been alive in the first place, they could not continue to be alive without a Savior.



Why do you conclude that one can only need a Savior if one is condemned? Unless by condemned you mean simply "needs a Savior," in which case this becomes "babies need a Savior because they need a Savior."

Here's Waggoner on Romans 5:18



I agree with Waggoner here.

4.Again, regarding the "letters have been coming to me" quote, you're not tying back to anything Jones and Waggoner preached. You have to do that. The letters were coming in response to what Jones and Waggoner were preaching. What were Jones and Waggoner preaching in regards to Christ's human nature? They were preaching what I quoted:



This is what the people were hearing, and what they had questions about. Ellen White was defending what had been presented, not out of the blue coming up with some argument that no one had been presenting.

5.Ellen White endorsed W. W. Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" in the strongest language. She spoke of it's being "truth separated from error," and went on and on in regards to how the Holy Spirit was using him.

The theme of the sermon was that Christ came in flesh identical to ours, "flesh of sin," he called it. He expressed the same views I've been defending.

How could such an endorsement be anything but a goof, if your view were correct? Have you read the sermon? Over 30 times he makes the point that Christ took our sinful flesh, flesh just like yours and mine. He also made the corporate arguments in regards to Romans 5:18 that I've shared. Really, I can think of almost nothing in that sermon you would agree with, yet Ellen White went bonkers over it.

Thanks. The immediate shock is wearing off, and people are recovering. When things like this happen, it should remind us that knowing the truth is not nearly as important as knowing Him who is the Truth.