It depends upon how she's using the term "nature." "Nature" can mean many different things. For example, it could used as a synonym to "flesh" or "character," depending upon the context.

This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with whether one is a post-lapsarian or not. This is just a recognition of how EGW used a certain word.



But we obviously can't change our heredity, right? Which is to say, our flesh doesn't change. Scripture never talks about our changing our flesh. We are told to crucify it, not change it.

"Sinful nature" and "sinful flesh" are interchangeable. At least they should be. I know of no exceptions in her writings, or the writings of Prescott, Jones, Haskell, or Waggoner. I have seen some writing about these things use these terms, and similar ones, in odd ways, however.



Just off the top of my head, I think it makes sense. I also think I see where he's going with it, but, boy, one sure needs to be careful in how one expresses the thought here.

Since babies do not make choices and decisions, you don't seem to believe they have a mind. But of course they do.
Not just choices and decisions, but your personality traits, your character traits, your likes and dislikes, your individuality, are in your mind. This is obvious.


Sure. How do you think Adam and Eve transmitted sinful character traits to their children?


Yes, but in what aspects? Did God supply perfect chromosomes? How did dominant and recessive traits work in Christ's case? There are many questions for which we have no answer. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that, from birth, Christ had to be without blemish and without spot, and I wouldn't say that about any sinful baby born on this earth.


The first one. But I should also say that I don't consider that sinful tendencies are transmitted through the "flesh"-body, but through the "flesh"-carnal mind.

Rosangela, 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 switch gears and become a power and force for righteous and true holiness? Will the insights presented in the following passages make an about face?


At what point do the following truths become a reality for human beings? Do they describe prefall Adam?

COL 98
The natural inclinations are softened and subdued. New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. A new standard of character is set up--the life of Christ. The mind is changed; the faculties are roused to action in new lines. Man is not endowed with new faculties, but the faculties he has are sanctified. The conscience is awakened. We are endowed with traits of character that enable us to do service for God. {COL 98.3}

How does this distinction fit in with the following passages? Seems to me she says the flesh-body does indeed generate stimuli which become conscious thoughts and feelings, that they originate with the body and become known in the mind. Not the other way around. The lower passions and appetites and animal propensities are faculties of the flesh-body, not the flesh-mind.

The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words “flesh” or “fleshly” or “carnal lusts” embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. (AH 127)

Such a diet contaminates the blood and stimulates the lower passions. {MM 280.4}

The lower passions of their nature have taken the reins, and that which should be the governing power has become the servant of corrupt passion. {CH 617}

The lower passions bore sway, predominating over the higher powers of the mind. {6T 697}

Intemperance inflames the passions and gives loose rein to lust. And reason and conscience are blinded by the lower passions. {4T 31.1}

Those who have not brought the lower passions into subjection to the higher powers of their being, those who have allowed their minds to flow in a channel of carnal indulgence of the baser passions, Satan is determined to destroy with his temptations-- to pollute their souls with licentiousness. {TSB 84.2}

If enlightened intellect holds the reins, controlling the animal propensities and keeping them in subjection to the moral powers, Satan well knows that his power to overcome with his temptations is very small. {Con 58.1}

Not in the context of our discussion. The word "mind" has a hundred meanings. You can't just switch indiscriminately from one definition to another.

From Webster:



Infants do not reason, so if a mind involves "especially reasons," this does not apply to infants.



According to Webster, the mind involves the will, and especially reasoning. It should be obvious that this excludes newborns.



If your parents, and none of their ancestors, had a desire to watch soccer, but you do, your children will have a genetically passed desire for watching soccer? Or if you develop a taste for Monet, your children will have a Monet-appreciation gene? If you learn to play the piano, your child will have a gene for learning the piano? But if you learn to play the oboe instead, your child will have a genetic preference for the oboe?



Let's consider:



What results are shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors?



The same way as for any other zygote. Otherwise He wouldn't be following the great law of heredity.



That's true, but this isn't one of them. "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." This is clear.



I don't know what your point is here. Is it anything other than that babies have sinful natures?

Back to the points I was making:

a.All SDA's that spoke regarding Christ's human nature in Ellen White's lifetime were post-lapsarian.
b.Ellen White was understood by her contemporaries as teaching that Christ had inherited tendencies to sin.
c.Ellen White knew this.
d.Ellen White specifically endorsed, on more than one occasion, those who were teaching the post-lapsarian position.
e.Ellen White used the language that post-lapsarians use.

We have a historical setting which does not allow for Ellen White's not having a post-lapsarian viewpoint regarding Christ's human nature.

How can you affirm that? Take a look here.


No, it isn’t obvious. Ellen White says children eight months old are already stubborn and need correction, which means they have a will. And of course it isn’t long after birth that babies know, through the faculty of the will, if they prefer to stay in the cradle or in mum’s arms.


All of these are invalid examples. There is no evidence whatsoever that a desire for watching soccer, a taste for Monet, or the preference for a given musical instrument are passed genetically. But this is what Ellen White says about transmitted tendencies:

“Did the Lord make these youth corrupt? Oh, no! Who, then, has done this fearful work? Were not the sins of the parents transmitted to the children in perverted appetites and passions? And was not the work completed by those who neglected to train them according to the pattern which God has given? Just as surely as they exist, all these parents will pass in review before God.” {1MCP 140.3}

“If Satan can persuade people to follow a course that is contrary to the principles underlying and running through every enactment of God's law, he has a chance to work upon their minds. ... This creates a train of thought which separates the soul from the Spirit of God. The mind becomes more and more infatuated, and the power to overcome temptation is destroyed. The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family.” {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}


Yes, it is that those who have sinful natures cannot be classified as without blemish and without spot. At least I don't know how any sinful baby could be classified as “without blemish and without spot.”

No, because our carnal mind (our old nature) is just crucified, not eliminated.


The physical aspect.


Of course. The advantage is not being born with a carnal mind which is at enmity with God and His law. In what respects the difficulty of temptations, however, there is no advantage.


Well, it seems to me our sinful tendencies will be subdued and overcome and, so, cut away from the character. However, they are old habits and, as such, remain in our memory and will try to reassert themselves. So, until Christ comes we will have to watch against them and force them back. Perhaps when God says that “the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind” He is referring to our sinful tendencies which will be wiped away from our mind. (Notice that, differently from you, I don’t think that they are in our body, but in our mind.)

“Watch against the stealthy approach of the enemy, watch against old habits and natural inclinations, lest they assert themselves; force them back, and watch. Watch the thoughts, watch the plans, lest they become self-centered.” {AG 332.5}

“Those who are truly converted grow in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and as knowledge of Christ increases, they see more clearly where their own weakness lies; they realize the deep depravity of their natures. They understand the strength of sin, and know the power of their old habits. . . . They have daily a sense of their entire inability to do anything without the help of Jesus Christ.” {TMK 62.2}

“Temptations will come to the newly-converted soul. Old habits and practices will seek for the mastery; but in the name of Jesus, resist every temptation.”{YI, August 9, 1894 par. 8}

“It is essential to live by every word of God, else our old nature will constantly reassert itself.” {RH, October 12, 1897 par. 7}


Of course the physical component (unbalanced appetites and passions) influences the mind, however, our main problem is with the mind.

“Many professed Christians who passed before me, seemed destitute of moral restraint. They were more animal than divine. In fact, they were about all animal. Men of this type degrade the wife whom they have promised to nourish and cherish. She is made an instrument to minister to the gratification of low, lustful propensities. And very many women submit to become slaves to lustful passion; they do not possess their bodies in sanctification and honor.... Imagine, if you can, what must be the offspring of such parents. Will not the children sink still lower in the scale? 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}

We've been talking about newborns. By the age of 8 months, a baby has made many choices and decisions.



That was my point. I asked you, "Do you believe character that is developed by a parent is passed on by the genes?" You responded, "Sure." But now you say there's not evidence that the preferences I mentioned are passed genetically. I agree.

There's no evidence any developed character traits are passed genetically. Do you know of any?



This is rather arguing in a circle, isn't it? For years, over a century, SDA's taught that Christ took our sinful nature, yet was without blemish. Perfection was understood as having to do with the character, not with the flesh.



Babies haven't developed a character.

Rosangela, I asked some questions I was interested in your thinking on. I didn't see that you addressed these. Sorry if you already did.

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?

EGW tells us that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity. Yet you seem to be saying 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). Or both?

And when exactly did he begin to make these “many choices and decisions”? Since he was born – if he prefers to stay in the cradle or in mum’s arms, if he prefers to suck a pacifier or his finger, etc. He began with elementary choices and decisions.


Yes. If someone acquires lustful habits, or intemperate habits, or any other moral habit, he may pass these inclination to his children. Again, how did Adam transmit sinful character traits to his children?


I don’t buy this argument.