THE BOOK "QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE" & THE NATURE OF CHRIST
"When a soul receives Christ, he receives power to live the life of Christ." {SD 12.5}
In the 1950s the Evangelicals met with leaders of the Seventh day Adventists church and indicated that, because of certain Adventists teachings, they were going to have to call Seventh day Adventism a cult. One of the main reasons for this threat was the Adventist teaching that Christ did “take upon Him the form and nature of Fallen man.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 12-31-72.
To avoid the label of cult a group of Adventist leaders searched the writings of Ellen White looking for any statement which could be used to say Christ took the nature of UNFALLEN Adam. The results of their efforts were presented in the book Questions on Doctrine. This web page deals with the quotes that were used and demonstrates that they do not teach that Christ took an unfallen human nature.
Before we look at the handful of Ellen White statements that have been INTERPRETED to mean that Christ took an UNFALLEN NATURE, let us just refresh our minds with a few of the many statements that need no interpretation...
“In taking upon Himself MAN’S NATURE IN ITS FALLEN CONDITION, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin...” E.G. White, The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898.
“The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and THE NATURE OF ADAM THE TRANSGRESSOR, meet in Jesus, the Son of God, and the Son of man.” E.G. White, Manuscript 141, 1901. [What nature did Adam THE TRANSGRESSOR have?]
“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 himself endure the strength of Satan’s temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 12-31-72. [Not just FORM but form AND NATURE]
“His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, IDENTICAL WITH OUR OWN...He would redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity.” E.G. White, Selected Messages Book 3. [IDENTICAL with OUR OWN nature]
“He took upon Him OUR SINFUL NATURE.” E.G. White, Signs of the Times, 7-30-02. [SINFUL NATURE]
“Having taken OUR FALLEN NATURE, he showed what it might become.” E.G. White, Selected Messages , Vol. 3, p134. [FALLEN NATURE]
According to the servant of the Lord, Christ took or fallen sinful human nature, a human nature identical to our own, the nature of fallen Adam. This is not to say that He sinned as possessing our nature is not a sin. The only definition of sin is the transgression of the law and there is no law against possessing our fallen nature.
A book called Questions on Doctrine was written after Adventism was accused of being a cult. One reason for being labelled a cult was our position on the human nature of Christ. The book attempted to show that Adventists taught the same as the fallen churches of Babylon regarding the human nature of Christ - namely that He took an UN-fallen nature. The writers searched the statements of Ellen White to support this claim and presented their findings.
Did the anonymous writers of the book Questions on Doctrine (QOD) find any statements saying that Christ took SINLESS Human nature?
NO. It is worth noting that NOT ONE of the passages mentioned in QOD states that Christ took the sinless or unfallen nature of Adam. Ellen White wrote 25,000,000 words and stated hundreds of times that Christ took our fallen / sinful human nature, a nature like ours!
Six of the nine statements presented in QOD are from magazine articles 1874-1905. The largest source is credited to the SDABC which was written long after Ellen White died, and the relevant statements are actually from one private letter to a Pastor Baker 1895. 31 of the 92 lines in Questions on Doctrine (fully 1/3rd) is credited to the SDABC. The fact that this attempt to prove that Christ took a sinless human nature is heavily based on an unpublished letter to a Pastor Baker is in violation of the plain declaration of inspiration:
“If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works.” E.G. White, Testimonies Vol. 5, p696.
The Desire of Ages, which is all about the life of Christ, must be regarded as her deliberately prepared and published position on Christ’s human nature. What does the Desire of Ages say?
“It would have been an ALMOST INFINITE HUMILIATION for the Son of God to have taken man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. BUT Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.”” E.G. White, Desire of Ages, p49.
To subordinate the position given in the Desire of Ages to an unpublished letter is simply unacceptable by any standards of scholarship. Those who resort to such methods tacitly admit the weakness of their position.
Furthermore, other letters written in the same period as the Baker letter contain statements such as:
“What a strange symbol of Christ was that likeness of the serpent which stung them! This symbol was lifted on a pole and they were to look to it, and be healed. So Jesus was made in the likeness of SINFUL FLESH.” E.G. White, Letter 55, 1895.
“Just that which you may be, He was in human nature. He took our infirmities. He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of SINFUL FLESH. His divine attributes were withheld from relieving His soul anguish or His bodily pains.” E.G. White, Letter 106, 1896.
Dr. Froom states that the Questions on Doctrine paper was read and approved by 225 Adventist thought leaders but they have never been identified. Why such secrecy?
Were the compilers chosen at random or selected because of their views to ensure a certain conclusion? Were these leaders able to examine the source documents in the White estate vaults or were they scattered across the world?
If they were scattered across the world then their “approval” was not based on an examination of the actual documents but only that which they had been given.
The significance of Questions on Doctrine is enormous. It is seen by many as the absolute and final truth regarding the church’s view of the human nature of Christ, an authoritative pronouncement from which no reasonable appeal or dissent is possible. It is widely thought that anyone who questions it is either demonstrating their lack of education or their disloyalty to the Adventist church.
ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN IN QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Note: The headings are NOT inspired but added by the compilers and reveal their intentions. These headings appeared in Ministry magazine but were deleted in Questions on Doctrine.
Beneath each statement is the ANSWER to the implied claims of those who misused the statements.
1. CHRIST TOOK HUMANITY AS GOD CREATED IT. E.G. White, ST June 9, 1898.
“Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man’s representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, AS GOD CREATED HIM, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement.”
ANSWER
The heading in added by the compilers. The statement itself is used to imply that Christ came in the unfallen nature in which Adam was created. The quote does not say that Christ took an unfallen human nature. This is an interpretation.
As Ellen White wrote the statement it is preceded by the words, “Christ...TOOK OUR NATURE IN ITS DETERIORATED CONDITION...” and it is followed by the words, “In taking upon Himself man’s nature in it’s FALLEN CONDITION.” E.G. White, ST June 9, 1898.
Editing out the statement that “Christ...took our FALLEN NATURE,” and just quoting the “AS GOD CREATED HIM” in order to make the writer say that Christ took a sinless nature is evil and deceptive!
What then is the statement teaching? By overcoming sin in OUR FALLEN nature Christ demonstrated that Adam “AS GOD CREATED HIM” - with an unfallen human nature, could certainly have overcome.
2. BEGAN WHERE ADAM FIRST BEGAN. E.G. White, The Youth’s Instructor, June 2, 1898
“Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, HE BEGAN WHERE THE FIRST ADAM BEGAN. Willingly he PASSED OVER THE GROUND WHERE ADAM FELL, and redeemed Adam’s failure.”
ANSWER
Christ began where the first Adam began. Began what? Christ met the same TEMPTATIONS as Adam. The passage does not even mention Christ’s human nature.
“The great work of redemption could only be carried out by the Redeemer taking the place of FALLEN ADAM...He would take MAN’S FALLEN NATURE.” E.G. White, Review & Herald, 24 Feb, 1874.
IF the words, “passed over the ground where ADAM fell” meant that Christ took Adam’s UNFALLEN nature then the statement
“...by passing over the ground which man must travel...Christ prepared the way for US to gain the victory” (ST 27 May, 1897) would mean that Christ took our FALLEN nature!
Interpretations that cause an author to contradict themselves are to be avoided.
When one realizes that the statement refers to the TEMPTATIONS of Christ rather than His nature there is no problem.
3. TOOK HUMAN FORM BUT NOT CORRUPTED SINFUL NATURE. The Signs of the Times, 05-29-01
“In the fulness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but NOT THE SINFULNESS OF MAN. In heaven was heard the voice, “The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.”
ANSWER
Christ did not take the sinfulness of man, (i.e. He never sinned) but He did take our sinful nature.
The prophet stated it this way:
“In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its FALLEN CONDITION, Christ did not in the least participate in its SIN.” E.G. White ST June 9, 1898.
“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 himself endure the strength of Satan’s temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 12-31-72.
Christ took our fallen human nature but not our sinfulness because He never sinned.
4. TOOK ADAM’S SINLESS HUMAN NATURE. E.G. White, The Youth’s Instructor, 04-25-01
“When Christ bowed his head and died, he bore the pillars of Satan’s kingdom with him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in THE SAME NATURE OVER WHICH IN EDEN SATAN HAD OBTAINED THE VICTORY. The enemy was overcome by Christ in his HUMAN NATURE. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory.”
ANSWER
The heading is added by the compilers. Ellen White never said that. Christ took the same nature over which Satan had obtained victory - HUMAN NAURE, as is explained by the passage itself.
The passage is contrasting human nature with Divine nature. Furthermore the passage reveals that it is our privilege to overcome in the human nature in which Christ overcame.” “This is the privilege of all.” It is not our privilege to overcome in the unfallen nature of Adam but it is our privilege to overcome in human nature.
5. PERFECT SINLESSNESS OF HIS HUMAN NATURE. S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p1131
“In taking upon Himself MAN’S NATURE IN ITS FALLEN condition, Christ DID NOT IN THE LEAST PARTICIPATE IN ITS SIN. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He “knew no sin.” He was the lamb “WITHOUT BLEMISH AND WITHOUT SPOT” Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour’s head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam... We should have no misgivings in regard to THE PERFECT SINLESSNESS OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST.”
ANSWER
Read the whole passage in Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p252-256. There you will see statements such as, “Christ who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took OUR NATURE in its DETERIORATED CONDITION.”
What nature did Christ take according to this passage? “Man’s nature in its FALLEN CONDITION.”
Compare this, “There should be not the faintest misgivings in regards to the perfect FREEDOM FROM SINFULNESS in the human nature of Christ.” E.G. White, Manuscript 143, 1897.
To Ellen White “Perfect sinlessness” is the same as “freedom from sinfulness.”
The writers distinction between sinlesSness and the sinful nature can also be seen in:
“Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments will reach the condition of SINLESSNESS in which Adam lived before his transgression.” E.G. White, Sign of the Times, July 23, 1902.
We may live lives of sinlessness in sinful nature, because Christ lived a life of sinlessness in our sinful nature.
Note the clear statement below:
“In Him was NO GUILE OR SINFULNESS; He was ever pure and undefiled, yet He took upon Him our SINFUL NATURE.” E.G. White, BE April 5, 97.
By living in our fallen nature a life of sinlessness Christ condemned sin in our flesh and showed the consecrated way to Christian perfection!
6. INHERITED NO EVIL PROPENSITIES FROM ADAM. S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p1128
“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.”
ANSWER
Christ never had “propensities OF sin,” that is propensities stemming from having sinned. He had no bad habits or propensities that come as a result OF sinning.
We in sinful human nature who have sinned and acquired propensities OF sin need not retain our propensities OF sin:
“We must realize that through belief in him it is our privilege to be partakers of the divine nature, and so escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. Then we are CLEANSED FROM ALL SIN. ALL DEFECTS OF CHARACTER. WE NEED NOT RETAIN ONE SINFUL PROPENSITY." E.G. White, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 24 April, 1900.
As we in our sinful nature may be without sinful propensities the fact that Christ was without propensities of sin does not determine the type of human nature He took. By living in our fallen nature Christ showed what the born again may be in their fallen nature.
7. CONQUERED SATAN AS SECOND ADAM. E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-28-74
“Christ was not in as favorable a position in the desolate wilderness to endure the temptations of Satan AS WAS ADAM WHEN HE WAS TEMPTED IN EDEN. The Son of God humbled himself and took man’s nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was WITHOUT THE TAINT OF SIN...Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, STOOD IN ADAM’S PLACE to bear the test he failed to endure.”
ANSWER
Though the passage refers to Adam being without the taint of sin we believe it true also of Christ. Christ had no taint of sin. The passage states that Christ,
“took man’s nature AFTER the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and FROM their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy.”
The rest of the article states “Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ’s advent to the earth. And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He who knew no sin, became sin for us.” E.G. White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7A, 448.
To use a line from this passage to support the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam is shocking!
Christ was assailed with temptations in the wilderness as Adam was tempted in Eden but this says nothing of Christ’s human nature.
8. GUARD AGAINST MAKING CHRIST ALTOGETHER HUMAN. E.G. White, The SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129
“Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. . . .NEVER, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a TAINT OF, OR INCLINATION TO, CORRUPTION rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called “that holy thing.” It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ ALTOGETHER HUMAN, SUCH AN ONE AS OURSELVES; for it cannot be.”
ANSWER
Christ was not altogether such an one as ourselves, He was GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. Furthermore He never yielded to corruption or had a taint of, or inclination to corruption because He never yielded to corruption. He was somehow “tempted in all points like as we are” yet how He who never sinned was tempted like we who HAVE sinned is a mystery. Christ was not “altogether” human - He was God in OUR FLESH!
The letter does not mention what nature Christ had but mentions things He did not have.
Some interpret Christ not being altogether human, such an one as ourselves, as meaning that He had an unfallen human nature. Such an interpretation is not necessary and would contradict other statements.
Though “He took upon Him OUR SINFUL NATURE.” E.G. White, Signs of the Times, 7-30-02.
He never sinned.
The Baker letter, from which this comes, mentions that Christ did not sin a total of nine times. This suggests that Mr Baker’s either taught that Christ had sinned or that He had propensities OF sin, that is stemming from having personally sinned.
9. BECAME HEAD OF THE FALLEN RACE. E.G. White, The Signs of the Times, 04-26-05
“What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The Son of Man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity, standing AT THE HEAD OF THE FALLEN RACE, that human beings might be placed on vantage-ground! Possessing eternal riches, yet living the life of a poor man! One with the Father in dignity and power, yet in His humanity tempted in all points like as we are tempted! In the very moment of His dying agony on the cross, a Conqueror, answering the request of the repentant sinner to be remembered by Him when He came into His kingdom, with the words, “Verily I say unto thee to-day, Thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.”
ANSWER
There is nothing here that needs addressing regarding the nature of Christ.
CONCLUSION
The anonymous theologians and scholars could not find a single passage in the writings of Ellen White to support the claim that Seventh day Adventist taught that Christ took a fallen nature.
All they could do was find passages which they edited and misconstrued to teach what they wanted to teach. They, like others before them, wrested the words of God to support their errors while ignoring literally hundreds of clear statements showing that Christ took our fallen nature. Ellen White taught in accordance with the Bible that Christ took the nature of fallen man and lived a life of sinlessness in it.
A New Christological Pronouncement
An Analysis of the evidence
A Chapter from, The Word was made Flesh, Ralph Larson, p 249-259.
The last of the three statements presented verbatim on pages 233-237 will be used for our analysis of the evidence since it most clearly reveals the use to which the quotations were put, and gives us the best insight as t what Dr. Froom and his companions would have said to Dr. Martin bout these quotations in their conference together. It is from Dr. Froom’s Movement of Destiny, p. 497:
Took sinless nature of Adam before the fall. - 1 During His Incarnation He stood as “mans representative,” just “as God created him” - that is, referring to Adam. 2 As the “second Adam,” He “began where the first Adam began.” 3 He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and (He Christ) redeemed Adam’s failure.” 4 He took “the nature but not the sinfulness of man.” 5 He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan had obtained the victory.” 6 He “did not in the least participate in its sin.” 7 He was “subject to the infirmities and weaknesses” by which man is encompassed. 8 But we are to have no misgivings as to “the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.” 9 He did not have the “propensities to sin.”
(These are Fundamental declarations)
10 Christ was like Adam before the Fall - “a pure , sinless being, without the taint of sin upon him.” 11 He “could fall.” (That was possible - otherwise temptation would not have been an actuality, only a farce). 12 He “took...human nature, and was tempted in all points” as human nature is tempted. 13 But “not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” 14 When “Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint if sin.” 15 Christ was “assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.” 16 So “Christ, in the wilderness of temptation stood in Adam’s place to bear the test he (Adam) failed to endure.”
Nevertheless, Christ 17 “took man’s nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness.” 18 But “never, in any way, leave the slightest impression” that “a saint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ.” 19 Then comes the strong admonition, “Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves, for it cannot be.” Dr. Froom, Movement of Destiny, p497. (Numbering mine).
These paragraphs contain 19 statements that are given to support the conclusion that Christ took the human nature Adam possessed before the Fall. Within each statement is a small quotation from Ellen White. We will discover that NONE of the Ellen White quotations say that Christ took the nature Adam possessed before the Fall! In fact some say the exact opposite!
We will consider the statements in order:
1. During His Incarnation He stood as “mans representative,” just “as God created him” - that is, referring to Adam. (Froom)
We observe:
a. As Ellen White wrote the statement, it makes no reference to Adam.
b. As she wrote the statement, it was preceded by the words:
“Christ...took our nature in its deteriorated Condition.” ST 11/06/01.
and followed by the words: “In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition...”
c. Ellen White’s reference to Christ standing as man’s representative in His incarnation must be compared with passages like these:
“The Commander of all heaven, He humbled Himself to stand at the head of the FALLEN humanity...” ST 12/20/99.
“He laid aside His kingly crown and royal robe, and stepped down from His high command to take His place at the head of the fallen race.” ST 11/06/01
“ The Son of God took human nature upon Him, and came to this earth to stand at the head of the fallen race.” ST 12/09/03
“He took His stand at the head of the fallen race.” RH 6/15/05
“Here (at Christ’s baptism) was the assurance to the Son of God that His Father accepted the fallen race through their representative...the Son of God was then the representative of our race.” ST 8/07/79
2. As the “second Adam” He “began where the first Adam began.” (Froom)
Ellen White wrote the words:
“Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam’s failure.” YI 6/02/98
This statement indicates that Christ met the same temptations that Adam met. It does not say that being the second Adam means that He took the unfallen nature of Adam. This is an interpretation, but the interpretation must be compared to this:
“The great work of redemption could only be carried out by the Redeemer taking he place of fallen Adam...He would take man’s fallen nature.” RH 2/24/74
We must not force Ellen White to contradict her self by placing an interpretation on her words, “the second Adam.” We must follow he hermeneutical principle of allowing her to explain her own writings.
3. He “passed over the ground where Adam fell, and (He Christ) redeemed Adam’s failure.” (Froom)
“This is from the same passage as the previous example, and the same principles apply to it. Ellen White’s purpose was to state that Christ met the same temptations that Adam met. The expression “passed over the same ground” should be compared with:
“...by passing over the same ground which man must travel...Christ prepared the way for us to gain the victory.” ST 5/27/97, p325, col. 3.
“If the lines used by Froom mean that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam, then the second reference would have to mean that Christ took the nature of fallen man. Such difficulties may be avoided by accepting that both expressions to refer to the temptations of Christ rather than His human nature.
4. He took “the nature but not the sinfulness of man.” (Froom)
In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.” ST 5/29/01
We have seen that the term sinfulness as used by Ellen White meant the presence of sinning. (See page 16.) She also wrote:
“In taking man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.” ST 6/09/98
“The reference to His position at the head of humanity should be compared with similar expressions which identify this humanity as fallen. (See pages 250-251).)
5. He “vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory.” (Froom)
Ellen White wrote:
"When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan’s kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hide. He overcame in human nature, relying on God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory.” YI 4/25/01
It is apparent that Ellen Whites is here contrasting human nature with divine nature, rather than contrasting two different aspects of human nature. And it would be useless to argue that to overcome in the nature of the unfallen Adam is the privilege of all.
Since the quotations in the next sentences are all form the same source, they will be considered together.:
6, 7, 8. 6 He “did not in the least participate in its sin.” 7 He was “subject to the infirmities and weaknesses” by which man is encompassed. 8 But we are to have no misgivings as to “the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.” (Froom)
The quotations from Ellen White,“...did not in the least participate in sin.”, “...subject to the infirmities and weaknesses...”, “...the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ,” were all taken from the same passage in the article by Ellen White in Signs, June 9, 1898. It may be seen entire in Selected Messages, Volume 1, pages 252-256. If possible, the student should read the entire article. It is rich in assurances that Christ fully identified Himself with fallen man.
Lines like these will be observed:
“What a sight was this for the heaven to look upon! Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition.”
And the passage from which the three excerpts are quoted begins with the words:
“In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition...”
The student may decide for himself whether quotations which follow those words as a paragraph topic sentence may be properly be placed under a topic sentence which says precisely the opposite:
“Took sinless nature of Adam before the fall.”
In the last of these three statements we find an example of how we may go astray if we do not carefully follow the hermeneutical principle that a writer’s words and/or expressions must be explained by the same writer’s other word-usages if that is possible. Ellen White wrote:
“We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.”
Compare:
“There should not be the faintest misgivings in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ.” Ms 143, 1897
It is apparent that the two expressions used in describing the human nature of Christ, “Perfect sinlessness, (and)
“Perfect freedom from sinfulness,” meant the same thing to the writer, who introduced the subject by stating that Christ took the fallen nature of man and did not participate in its sin. The writer’s distinction between sinlessness and nature appears again in this passage:
“Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.” ST 7/23/02
It is apparent that these persons will not have lost their fallen, sinful natures. Thus, according to Ellen White’s use of the terms, the sinlessness of sinful nature is a practical possibility, because her word sinlessness refers to the absence of sinning. (See also AA 562.) This condition can be combined with fallen natures, as she saw it.
“In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled, yet He took upon Him our sinful nature.” BE 4/05/97
We have a similar usage of terms by Ellen White in this statement:
“He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.” ST 5/29/01, p339, col. 2, BV 182
Here again it is apparent that to Ellen White sinfulness meant presence of sinning, just as sinlessness meant the absence of sinning. With these facts in mind, we recognize that Ellen White could write if she chose to:
We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the sinful human nature of Christ.
As she used the words, that statement would be appropriate. It might appear singular to us, but it is our duty, as research workers, to let her speak to us in her way, and not to force our meanings onto her words. Thus we will avoid transgressing the additional hermeneutical principle that we must force a writer to contradict herself. We must remember hat the passage in question begins with the words>
“In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.”
Only moments later, the same hand and pen continued:
“We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.”
So it is clear that Ellen White believed in the perfect sinlessness of the sinful human nature assumed by Christ in His incarnation, a sinful nature in which there was never any sinning. The student should not overlook the fact that Ellen White used the suffixes "- ful" and "- ness" in strict conformity to the dictionary definitions. According to Websters Handy Collegiate Dictionary "- ful" means “a tendency toward” and "- ness" means “a state of being.” Ellen White consistently applies sinful to Christ’s nature but not sinfulness.
9. He DID NOT have the “propensities of sin.” (Froom, emphasis his)
We observe:
a. This excerpt is from the Baker letter,which is discussed elsewhere in this paper.
b. The word "of" is a derivative term, denoting origin or source; as tincture OF merthiolate, spirit OF ammonia, Claude OF Turin, Ambrose OF Milan, etc. “Propensities OF sin” would therefore denote sin as the source of the propensities. As man may sin by getting drunk, and he will be likely to have a propensity OF sin, a strong desire to do the same thing again. Christ never sinned, hence had no propensities OF sin. This is altogether different from saying that Christ had no propensities TO sin, which He might have inherited because of the sins of His ancestors. Although the words OF and To are small words, they are loaded with meaning. To exchange them one for the other in an expression like “propensities OF sin” would bring about enormous changes in meaning.
c. A re-examination on the word study of Ellen Whites uses of the terms passions and propensities will be helpful at this point. (See pp.22-28)
10. Christ was like Adam before the fall. “A pure sinless being, without the taint of sin upon Him.” (Froom, emphasis his.)
We observe
a. As Ellen White wrote the sentence, the subject is Adam, not Christ.
b. Websters’s Super New School and Office Dictionary defines taint as follows:
“Taint. No. 1 Corruption; disgrace. 2. Infection. 3. (obsolete); A spot or stain. v.i. 1. To imbue or impregnate with anything noxious; to infect. 2. To corrupt; v.i. 1. To become corrupted. 2. To become infected.
Remembering that the word OF denotes origin or source, we are ready to quickly agree hat there was no taint of sin in Adam before his fall or in Christ at any time. This says something about sin, but it says nothing about the nature of either Adam or Christ. And Ellen White’s intention in using the word “taint” is clearly revealed in this passage:
“(Christ) humbled Himself, in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but did not take the taint of sin.” Ms 1, 1893, p. 3.
11. He “cold fall.” (That was possible - otherwise temptation would not have been an actuality, only a fare.) (Froom)
We observe:
a. These two words are from the Baker letter.
b. Since all Adventists are agreed that it was possible for Christ to fall, this need not detain us.
c This gives no support to the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall.
12. He “took...human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted.” (Froom)
We observe:
a. This excerpt is from the Baker Letter.
b. It does not suggest that the human nature Christ assumed was sinless.
c. It is at least arguable that a sinless human nature cold not be tempted in all points as human nature is (now) tempted.
13. But “not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” (Froom)
a. This is the most famous excerpt from the Baker letter, which is seen by Ellen White’s interpreters as the absolute to which all of her other Christological statements must be subordinated.
b. We have seen in the word study on the use of passions and propensities in Ellen White’s writings that she did not equate natural propensities with evil propensities, as her interpreters do.
c. The use of this sentence by her interpreters to prove that she did not believe that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man is possible if
1. The word evil is read to mean natural; and
2. Her approximately 400 statements that Christ DID come to the earth in the nature of fallen man are either ignored or subjected to violent and extremely artificial interpretations.
14. When “Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin.” (Froom)
we observe
a. This is disputed by no one.
b. It gives no support to the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall.
c. As it is written by Ellen White, the context was like this:
“Christ was not in as favorable a position in the dsolate wilderness to endure the temptation of Satan as was Adam when he was tempted in Eden. The Son of God humbled Himself and took man’s nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been makings its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family.
When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. He stood in the strength of his perfection before God. All the organs and faculties of his being were equally developed, and harmoniously balanced.
Christ in the wilderness of temptation stood in Adam’s place to bear the test he failed to endure. Here Christ overcame in the sinner behalf, for thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. Separated from the presence of God, the human family had been departing, every successive generation, farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weakness of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man should be assailed.
Adam was surrounded with everything His heart could wish. Every want was supplied. There was no sin, and no signs of decay in glorious Eden. Angels of God conversed freely and lovingly with the holy pair. The happy songsters caroled forth their free, joyous songs of praise to their Creator. The peaceful beasts in happy innocence enjoyed played about Adam and Eve, obedient to their word. Adam was in the perfection of manhood, the noblest of the Creator’s works. He was in the image of God, but a little lower than the angels.”
Christ the Second Adam
In what contrast is the second Adam as He entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan single handed! Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ’s advent to the earth. And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He who knew no sin, became sin for us. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depth of human woe, that He might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him.
“For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many dons unto glory, to make their captain of there salvation perfect through sufferings” [Heb 5:9; 2:17, 18 quoted.]
“For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb 4:15) (emphasis mine)
The use of the line from this passage to support the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall is shocking.
15. Christ was “assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam as assailed with temptation in Eden.” (Froom)
we observe:
a. This excerpt is from the Baker letter.
b. It says nothing about the nature of either Adam or Christ.
16. So Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam’s place to bear the test he (Adam) failed to endure.” (Froom)
We observe:
a. This is from the same passage as number 14. The use made of it is equally shocking.
17. Nevertheless, Christ “took man’s nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness.”
We observe:
a. This excerpt is from the same passage as numbers 14 and 16. The use made of it is likewise SHOCKING.
b. A new subtlety is introduced at this point by the use of the word nevertheless. By the context and the various discussions the reader is offered three choices of what it is aleged that Ellen White meant, but did not say:
1. These words refer only to the physical nature of Jesus (or)
2. Christ accepted the infirmities of fallen man vicriously, but not actually. (or)
3. Christ actually had three natures: the nature of God, the nature of unfallen Aam, and the nature of fallen man.
We have found no hint in Ellen White’s writings that she meant to say any of these things, nor that such thoughts had ever occurred to her. This represents the grotesque effort on the part of Ellen White’s interpreters to explain away the many statements of Elle nWhite that are not in harmony with their interpretations.
18. But “never in any way, leve the slightest impression” that “a taint of, or an inclination to corruption rested upon Christ.” (Froom)
We observe:
a. These two excerpts are from the Baker letter.
b. They are in a context in which Ellen White earnestly remonstrates with Baker that Christ never sinned. In her single letter to him she affirms with Baker that Christ never sinned a total of ten times. If counsel is given where counsel is needed, this would strongly indicate that Baker had become involved in the error of adoptionism, a view that Christ might have sinned in his early life, before He was adopted to be the Son of God. (See Appendix B.)
19. Then comes the strong admonition, “Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves.; for it cannot be.” (Froom)
We observe:
a. This, again is from the Baker letter.
b. The words “altogether human, such an one as ourselves.” are almost literally the words used by some adoptionists to describe the nature of Christ before He was adopted as the Son of God (See Appendix B.) There is no room for a Divine nature in a Christ who is ALTOGETHER HUMAN, such an one as ourselves. Ellen White often refers to Christ as the Divine Human Savior, but never as ALTOGETHER human.
So our conclusion about the evidential value of each of these quotations to support the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before his fall is that they fall far short of making their case. Of the nineteen sentences, all of the statements point out facts that are accepted without question by persons on both sides of the discussion about the human nature assumed by Christ in His incarnation. Thus the weight of the argument must be carried by the interpretations, none of which can endure the light of investigation, and most of which are drawn from the Baker letter. Thus the entire structure crumbles at the slightest touch of the investigators hand.
"Truth fears no investigation, on the contrary, it welcomes it"