Regarding Prescott:



For the non-Portuguese speaking (coitados)

"Pastor W. Prescott emphatically affirmed during a sermon, which was published in 'The Bible Echo' on 01/06/1896, that Christ took upon Himself our sinful nature." (Ministry Magazine, January - February, 2003)

This is the same sermon we've been discussing.

I’ll never agree with this, since I don’t believe tendencies to sin are in the body (with a few exceptions), but in the mind. Selfishness is not in the body, but in the mind. Our mind is a carnal mind and has tendencies to sin. The disinclination to obey the law of God, with which Ellen White says we are born, is of course in the mind, not in the body. The propensities of disobedience, with which Ellen White says we are born, are in the mind, not in the body. Anyone can see that.


What he thought and what he actually said are two different things. He never mentioned tendencies to sin in that sermon.



“When Eve, disregarding the Lord's admonition concerning the forbidden tree, ventured to approach it, she came in contact with her foe.” {Ed 23.3}

They, like Adam and Eve, would be tempted only when, and if, they approached the tree, which could be never. The tree was a forbidden tree and should not be approached, and if they were wise, they never approached it. A series of mistakes led Eve to approach the tree.
We, on the other hand, are in a completely different situation. We are exposed to Satan's temptations every moment, day and night, and we have no choice.

Is your disagreement is not that Christ's inherited nature had the same inherited inclinations that ours have, but with the idea that our inherited natures have tendencies to sin at all? The disagreement is not that Christ's human nature was post-lapsarian, but with what the characterization of a post-lapsarian nature should be?

Also are you disagreeing with my statement that "There should be no difficulty from reading any of the above to understand that while Christ's flesh was like ours, with tendencies to sin, His mind was unlike ours, because He never gave in to those tendencies." or are you disagreeing with the statements themselves that I quoted?



This depends upon what one means by "selfishness," "body," and "mind." If "selfishness" means a "tendency to being selfish," and "body" means "that which is passed genetically," then I disagree. The selfishness that is in the mind is not that which is passed genetically, since our minds consist of that which we choose to dwell upon, the principles we choose to lead our lives by. If we choose to act selfishly, then selfishness because of a way of life, a mindset.

Christ was genetically like we are, but His mind was unique because He always denied Himself. But He, like we, had a self that had to be denied.



True, but it is not these tendencies that Waggoner or Haskell or Prescott have in mind.



No, because the mind is not passed genetically. We're talking about apples and oranges here.



Again, the same problem. Apples and oranges. The flesh deals with what is passed genetically.

When Ellen White, or Waggoner, or Jones, or Prescott, or Haskell spoke of Christ's assuming our sinful nature, or sinful flesh, what they had in mind is that Christ took "all the inherited inclinations" we have, to quote Haskell, or the "tendencies to sin" which are common to human flesh, or human nature, to quote Waggoner. This is what it means to say that Christ took "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature."

Nobody had in mind our minds (no pun intended). The Jones quote makes that clear, as do the Waggoner quotes. Haskell, too, makes it clear that while Christ took our "flesh of sin," that this was flesh "in which we sin, but in which He did not sin."



This references cultivated tendencies to sin. Christ did not cultivate tendencies to sin.



The mind is developed, by our decisions, our choices. This is where we differ from Christ. Not because our physical makeup is different, as if He had a mind that was genetically different than ours, but because Christ never made the choices, the decisions, that we make; therefore He never developed a carnal mind.

Is the goal, then, to attain unto the human nature of Christ? Did His human nature change at all after the resurrection? Or, does He have the same human nature He inherited at birth? If not, in what way are they different?

Also, are you suggesting we can tame and train our fallen nature to be like it was before Adam fell? In other words, can we expect our internal foes to become internal friends? Will our flesh eventually stop tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus? Will the "the promptings of sin", the "antagonistic power [and] force", that resides within us, which "strive for the mastery", that wars against the Spirit and mind of the new man, gradually become a power for all that is good and righteous? If so, where does she say so?

ED 29
Christ is the "Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9. As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. But against these principles there is struggling an antagonistic power. The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist. To withstand this force, to attain that ideal which in his inmost soul he accepts as alone worthy, he can find help in but one power. That power is Christ. Co-operation with that power is man's greatest need. In all educational effort should not this co-operation be the highest aim? {Ed 29.1}

2MCP 516
"His servants ye are to whom ye obey" (Romans 6:16). If we indulge anger, lust, covetousness, hatred, selfishness, or any other sin, we become servants of sin. "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24). If we serve sin, we cannot serve Christ. The Christian will feel the promptings of sin, for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit; but the Spirit striveth against the flesh, keeping up a constant warfare. Here is where Christ's help is needed. Human weakness becomes united to divine strength, and faith exclaims, "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:57)!--RH, May 3, 1881. (SL 92, 93.) {2MCP 516.2}

AA 476
He who has determined to enter the spiritual kingdom will find that all the powers and passions of unregenerate nature, backed by the forces of the kingdom of darkness, are arrayed against him. Each day he must renew his consecration, each day do battle with evil. Old habits, hereditary tendencies to wrong, will strive for the mastery, and against these he is to be ever on guard, striving in Christ's strength for victory. {AA 476.3}

2T 687
The conflict will be close between self and the grace of God. Self will strive for the mastery and will be opposed to the work of bringing the life and thoughts, the will and affections, into subjection to the will of Christ. Self-denial and the cross stand all along in the pathway to eternal life, and, because of this, "few there be that find it." {2T 687.3}

AA 560
So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained. Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience. {AA 560.3}

First, I like that way of putting it. Rolls off the tongue.

There are SOP quotes that suggest that: We need not retain one sinful propensity. Sin will become hateful to us. We will reach the sinlessness of Adam in Eden.

The transforming power of God's grace addresses many problems.

Agreed! It does have a nice ring to it. Kudos to MM.



Clearly this has nothing to do with our inherited human nature, correct? That doesn't change until we are translated.



As it did for Christ.

Yes, my disagreement is with the statement that our “flesh” has tendencies to sin. As I’ve said in previous discussions, I think the word “flesh,” both in the Bible and in Ellen White, is used in two senses: 1) the body, and 2) the carnal mind.
Christ took our body, not our carnal mind.
We inherit sinful qualities of mind. I don’t think Christ inherited these from His mother.

“The parents give the stamp of character to their children. Therefore children that are born of these parents inherit from them qualities of mind which are of a low, base order.” {RH, September 26, 1899 par. 4}

I don't think there was any change in His human nature after the resurrection other than the glorification of His body.


I don't know if we will reach that point (and if we do reach, we won't know), by Ellen White says that

"When there is a determined purpose born in your heart to overcome, you will have a disposition to overcome, and will cultivate those traits of character that are desirable, and will engage in the conflict with steady, persevering effort. You will exercise a ceaseless watchfulness over your defects of character; and will cultivate right practices in little things. The difficulty of overcoming will be lessened in proportion as the heart is sanctified by the grace of Christ." {YI, September 7, 1893 par. 10}

Agreed. However, "carnal mind" has to do with participating in sin.



Agreed. Christ never sinned.



The mind involves choices and decisions we make, not genetically passed traits.



Christ developed His mind by the choices and decisions He made.



She uses the word "inherit" to include other things besides that which is passed genetically. Do you believe character that is developed by a parent is passed on by the genes?

If I understood you correctly, it is your feeling that Waggoner, Jones, Haskell, and Prescott were simply wrong in their idea that such a thing as "tendencies to sin" exist, which can be passed genetically?

I'm having some difficulty following you, because you seem to be saying two things. I'm sure you're not to yourself, so please bear with me, until I get it.

For example, EGW tells us that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity. Yet you seem to be saying He didn't, that things passed to us were not passed to Him. Am I misunderstanding you here? Or do you agree that the same things passed to us were passed to Him?

In other words, does your difference have to do with the content of what is passed to Christ (Christ did not receive the same things by heredity that we do) or the characterization of these things (Christ did receive that which we receive, but "tendencies to sin" is not one of these things -- either for Christ or for us).

It seems you are saying both things.

I might "borrow" it one of these days. I won't even ask permission, since I'm sure MM won't mind.


That depends on how one views the distinction between nature and character. Postlapsarians seem to draw a very sharp line between those two, a line that I do not find in the SOP. She speaks of our need of a transformation of nature. So she clearly includes a change of nature as part of conversion. Using this broad view of human nature, both inherited and cultivated, I see that change is needed across the board.

But DP mentioned something that I need to look into. He believes that our nature (separate from character) has a physical, mental, and spiritual component, and that our character also has a physical, mental, and spiritual component. We didn't have time to dig into it, but this sounds very strange to me.