By no means! The expression “sinless human nature” would have been misunderstood, and the idea that Christ had some special power we don’t have would have been reinforced. She did apply some times the term “sinless humanity” to Christ’s human nature. But she wanted to emphasize that Christ, being “a man of our flesh, ... was compassed with the weakness of humanity” (16MR 181, 182), however she pointed out again and again that He had taken on Him “humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ibid.). The humanity that He took was without a taint of sin, not the humanity which He developed. He was born without a taint of sin. Besides, she has just one quote in which she says Christ took our sinful nature (which was republished some times). She preferred the term “fallen nature.”


Of course not.

“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.”

Occam’s razor indicates here that “propensities” is synonym with “inclinations” or “tendencies,” as the dictionary defines the word, and that it refers to both inherited and cultivated tendencies to sin, as the text makes clear.


This has nothing to do with being alive or not. If they die five hours after being born, that is, still before sinning, can they be found in heaven or not? Did they need a Savior to get there or not?


“Condemned” means “condemned to not inherit eternal life.”

“Immortality, promised to man on condition of obedience, had been forfeited by transgression. Adam could not transmit to his posterity that which he did not possess; and there could have been no hope for the fallen race, had not God, by the sacrifice of his Son, brought immortality within their reach. While ‘death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,’ Christ ‘hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.’ [Rom. 5:12; 2 Tim. 1:10.] And only through Christ can immortality be obtained.” {GC 533.1}

"If men do not make Christ their personal Saviour, and become true and pure and holy, there is only one course for the Lord to pursue. He must destroy the sinner, for evil natures cannot inherit the kingdom of God." {16MR 273.3}


I see no evidence whatsoever that the letters received were necessarily related to Jones’ and Waggoner’s preaching. However, if they were, it was just because these preachers had touched the subject of Christ’s temptations and this had led people to think about it.


Why would I not agree with it? It’s a nice sermon. He not even once said in that sermon that Christ had taken humanity with its tendencies to sin. I understand the “sinful flesh” he speaks about as being the body with which we are born. Sinful moral tendencies are in the mind – it’s these I don’t believe Christ possessed.

?? Let's take this outside of an SDA conversation involving Ellen White. What power or issue are you talking about? I'm not aware of any Christian having the sort of problem you are talking about.

Before becoming an SDA, I belonged to a non-denominational Bible believing church. In regards to Christ, I believed what you believed, which is to say that Christ had a nature without tendencies to sin, like unfallen Adam had, but that Christ could become tired or hungry, etc. (My viewpoint changed when I read "The Desire of Ages") No one I've ever known believe that Christ had some special power attached to His human nature. It was just a human nature, but one without tendencies to sin.

It seems to me you are raising a non-existent issue, addressing questions people aren't asking. If the question is, "Did Christ inherit a nature with tendencies to sin?" that is a question that is asked, but if the question is "Did Christ inherit a nature with special powers that we don't have," I've never come across that question. Also, how would calling such a nature "sinless" enforce the idea that Christ's human nature would have these supposed special powers? What special power does the word "sinless" denote?

This term is commonly used today in Evangelical Christianity. Again, I know of no Evangelicals that believe that Christ's human nature had some special power. Calling it "sinless" simply means that His nature was like unfallen Adam's in that it had no tendencies to sin.

If what you had in mind was that Christ could be tempted, and could sin, stating that He had a sinless human nature would have no bearing on this, as there are those who believe that Christ took such a nature and could not be tempted, and those who believe He took such a nature and could be tempted.



If sinless humanity means "sinless nature" then the same objection you raised would apply, which is that this would be misunderstand as Christ's having some special power. But "sinless humanity" is easily understood as meaning that Christ didn't sin.

Here are some examples of her use of "taint of sin."





Being without the "taint of sin" = not having sins. In the first quote, we could hardly have a life free from any taint of sin if our sinful nature taints us.



Here are some "sinful nature" quotes:







The first two quotes explicitly say that Christ took our sinful nature, and the last one implies it. If one considers the last quote, one can see the same argument being set forth that has been mentioned previously, which is that Christ took our human nature (i.e. sinful) in order that could keep the law "it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law".



Of course not? Of course she would not continue to make the same points she made elsewhere?

From the Baker letter:

1.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.

2.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.

Breaking this up further:
1.a.Adam was created a spotless being
1.b.He could fall
1.c.He did fall

2.a.Christ took human nature
2.b.Christ could fall
2.c.Christ did not fall

Immediately after saying that not for one minute was there in Him an evil propensity, she speaks of how Christ was tempted. She's talking about being tempted, being able to fall, and sinning. It seems clear Baker's teaching involved Christ's sinning, and not just the nature he assumed. You seem to have the idea that Baker's theology was the same as that of Haskell, Prescott, Jones, Waggoner, etc., and that she is correcting that theology. The probably that this hypothesis is true is exceedingly small. There are too many obstacles to overcome.

The point I've been repeatedly making is that one cannot reasonably interpret Ellen White's writings in a vacuum, as if she lived in a world by herself. Her teachings, and the teaching of Jones, Waggoner and Prescott on this subject were well known. For example, Haskell quoted from Ellen White in "The Desire of Ages" and explained what she wrote as meaning that Christ had "all the inherited inclinations" that we have.

What I quoted to you from Romans 8:3,4 comes from what Waggoner taught. He taught this before she did, and she's using the same formula he did.

She preached side by side with Jones and Waggoner. When their view on Christ's nature was questioned, she defended it.

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 100 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.

Yet this is what we're supposed to believe in regards to Ellen White. Modern day interpreters can supposedly better tell us what she meant than her contemporaries.

If you tell me what you have in mind, rather than simply quoting things without comment, it's easier to figure out what you're trying to say.

You say condemned means "condemned not to have eternal life." Does that simply mean that we are mortal? So by saying that babies are condemned, you mean that they are mortal? If so, I agree. And I also agree that they need a Savior in order to have immortality. Is this your point? I'm inferring it is from the first quote.



This seems out of place in a discussion regarding infants, since infants do not make Christ their personal Savior. We know that infants will not be destroyed, so it's pretty clear this quote does not apply to infants, isn't it? To make this clear, I'll substitute "infants" for "men."



This doesn't make sense, does it?



The whole reason I've been bringing up this statement of hers is because of the historical context. She was preaching side by side with Jones and Waggoner. They went from place to place, preaching to youth, on righteousness by faith.

We have lots of examples of Jones and Waggoner's preaching. I'm not aware of any example where they made the argument you have suggested. A large weakness in your suggested interpretation is that it does not tie back to a question which could reasonably have been being asked, given what Jones and Waggoner actually preached.



Because you disagree with its themes. I'll quote from the sermon when I get home.

Look at one of your favorites.

The possibility of Jesus sinning was definitely a point of concern. Hence the emphasis on Christ's taking man's nature.

The error being corrected here is the idea that if Jesus had man's nature, He would have fallen under similar temptations. But we know that Adam in Eden fell under temptations similar to what we face. Therefore, the error wasn't even about pre- vs post-Fall.


Ask your postlapsarian friends. Everything I have ever read from a postlapsarian pen says that if Jesus had a sinless nature, He would have had a power not available to us. Priebe comes to mind, in particular. However, that idea is false, but on the other side of the road from the Holy Flesh people.

As I see it, "sinless" simply means "congruent with God's character." It says nothing about the ability to sin, since all the sinless angels have the ability to sin, and sinless man did sin.

The emphasis was on Christ's taking man's *fallen* nature.



There are several problems with this interpretation. First of all, nobody questions that Christ took the nature of a man. Secondly, nobody questions that unallen Adam could have resisted temptation. Thirdly, and most importantly, as this is the point I've been making, the whole reason I brought the quote up in the first place, is that it doesn't fit with the context.

My point has been that you are suggesting interpretations of what EGW wrote without taking into account the historical setting. You're looking at the words as if nobody existed but Ellen White. But there are historical contexts to take into consideration.

In this particular case, Ellen White was in the midst of a campaign where she was preaching side by side with Jones and Waggoner. The people had questions regarding what Jones and Waggoner preached regarding man's nature. We know what they taught, which is that Christ took our fallen nature in order to be tempted as we are. For example:



The people heard them preaching that Christ took our sinful nature, and asked how this could be, because if He took a nature like ours, we would fall to similar temptations that we fall to. EGW answered that if Christ had not taken our nature, 1)He could not have been our example; 2)He could not have been tempted as we are; 3)He could not have been our helper (being tempted as we are implies the possibility of yielding to temptation).

This interpretation ties back to what Jones and Waggoner preached.



This is referring to the quote that says if we give to Christ's human nature a power that it is not possible for ours to have, we break the completeness of His humanity. The power being spoken of here is the power of being sinless, which, obviously, a sinless nature has. Your question here clearly doesn't apply to my comment, as there is no possible confusion here. Rosangela said EGW avoided saying that Christ had a sinless human nature because that would cause confusion. What confusion would this cause? I don't see any.

As I pointed out, before being an SDA I believed Christ took a pre-lapsarian nature, as did the others in the congregation, and we never had any confusion that Christ's human nature had some special powers. I've never met anybody who had this question.

I keep hearing explanations of Ellen White's writings that involve her answering questions that I've never heard anybody ask. In addition to requiring that she used language that nobody understood, which she knew about, but didn't bother to correct, except for an obscure individual in Australia. Pretend you don't have a vested interested in what she's saying. How likely is this scenario?

On the other hand, I've met many people who question whether or not fallen man can fully overcome sin, which is what Jones and Waggoner taught. They taught that Christ took our fallen nature and because of this made it possible for us to overcome. There are many who feel that if Christ could not have taken our fallen nature because they don't believe that those with a fallen nature can fully overcome sin.



So what would be the problem in saying that Christ took a sinless human nature?

Arnold and Rosangela,

If Jesus inherited a form of sinless nature, a nature not tainted or corrupted by sin, a nature that did not war against the will of God, then He should have been able to develop sinless traits of character relying on the tools and nature He was born with, rather than having to partake of His Father's nature.

Did Jesus lay aside both His divine nature and His human nature and partake of His Father's nature? If not, why not? That is, why did He partake of His Father's nature in order to develop sinless traits of character? Why didn't He just rely on His own human nature like Adam did before the Fall, like holy angels and unfallen FMAs do now?

How was His human nature different than our human nature? What is it about our sinful nature that made it wrong or unsuitable for Him to inherit?

Why is it that we can be born again with a sinful nature and overcome as Jesus overcame, and yet it wasn't possible for Him to be born with a sinful nature and overcome?

Tom,

You are ignoring the fact that the debate between peccability and impeccability has been going on for centuries, and that a great part of Christianity believes that Christ could not sin. Just take a look at some links:

http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?p=7377

http://xrysostom.blogspot.com/2005/07/could-jesus-sin.html

http://www.drink-deep.com/2007/11/matthew-41-11-getting-started.html

http://www.growingchristians.org/dfgc/impeccab.htm

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/temptationofchrist.htm

In the link http://www.letusreason.org/Doct3.htm , for instance, the author falls into the pitfall Arnold pointed out:


This is completely false. If this was true, Adam wouldn’t have been able to sin, either.

Mike,

I think you are confusing divine nature with divine power. The divine nature is God’s nature of love with which man was created and which he lost at the fall. Being a partaker of the divine nature simply means being in harmony with the divine character – being in God’s image.

“He [Christ] came to impart his own divine nature, his own image, to the repentant, believing soul.” {YI, June 2, 1898 par. 8}

Although Adam was created in the divine image, he, in face of temptation, could not (and did not) develop a sinless character without laying hold of divine power. Neither could Christ.

“Satan charmed the first Adam by his sophistry, just as he charms men and women today, leading them to believe a lie. Adam did not reach above his humanity for divine power. He believed the words of Satan. But the second Adam was not to become the enemy's bondslave.” {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 6}


The satanic nature of selfishness with which we are born.

From EGW:



He took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature, so He didn't lay aside His divine nature.

I didn't ignore this. I mentioned that there are those who believe that Christ took a sinless human nature, yet could be tempted. Therefore if EGW's point was simply that Christ could be tempted, all she had to do was say that. Certainly it wasn't necessary for her to argue that Christ took a fallen human nature in order for it to be possible for Him to be tempted. As you point out, unfallen Adam was tempted, even though he had the nature of unfallen Adam.



From the first link you referenced. This has nothing to do with what EGW was arguing, nor what you suggest she was arguing against. This person says that Christ's divine nature would not let Him sin. Ellen White argued that Christ could sin because He took a nature like ours. EGW's argument does not address this person's point.

Anyway, this doesn't matter, as it doesn't address the issue, which is that Ellen White was preaching with Jones and Waggoner, and they preached like the following:



The people heard this preaching and had questions about it. They didn't preach in a manner that would lead to the questions you are suggesting Ellen White answered. You are reading her writings without considering what was happening at the time she wrote them. What was happening was that Jones and Waggoner were preaching that Christ took our fallen nature, and were making arguments like the one I just listed.