ARE THESE ELLEN WHITE COMMENTS CONTRADICTORY?

[miz3]

Quote:

Statement One

Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working 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..." DA 49;

Quote:

Statement Two

SOP: "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. {5BC 1128.4}"

First, these statements contradict each other in regard to Jesus Christ's inner nature! The first one says that Jesus Christ had a fallen "sinful nature" like you and I. The second statement says that there was no evil propensity (that is no sinful nature). The second statement says that his inner nature was like Adam in Eden (no fallen nature). The first statement says that Jesus Christ had Mary's fallen nature. Mary's nature was totally the opposite of Adam's nature in the Garden of Eden.

CONTRADICTION! CONTRADICTION! CONTRADICTION!

No wiggle room Ellen White contradicted herself. Is this the sign of "inspiration" or the sign of one person giving their own opinion and getting trapped in a CONTRADICTION!

Second, the First Statement contradicts Matthew chapter one which says that the Holy Spirit and only the Holy Spirit was involved in the Incarnation.

This is why it is Ellen White's opinion and not "inspired" testimony at all.

Thus, I am not expressing my opinion but simply stating FACT!

FACT ONE: Ellen White contradicts herself.

FACT TWO: Ellen White also contradicts the Bible.

NOTHING COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR!

[John317]

You make the judgment then between these contradictory statements. Both these statements came from Ellen White.

StatementOne

Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working 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..." DA 49;

Statement Two

SOP: "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. {5BC 1128.4}"

First, these statements contradict each other in regard to Jesus Christ's inner nature! The first one says that Jesus Christ had a fallen "sinful nature" like you and I. The second statement says that there was no evil propensity (that is no sinful nature). The second statement says that his inner nature was like Adam in Eden (no fallen nature). The first statement says that Jesus Christ had Mary's fallen nature. Mary's nature was totally the opposite of Adam's nature in the Garden of Eden.

CONTRADICTION! CONTRADICTION! CONTRADICTION!

No wiggle room Ellen White contradicted herself. Is this the sign of "inspiration" or the sign of one person giving their own opinion and getting trapped in a CONTRADICTION!

This is an example of people attacking something they don't understand but think they do.

What does Ellen White mean by "evil propensity"? You apparently believe that it means "sinful nature." But is this true?

You also claim that the second statement is saying that Christ had the human, inner nature of Adam before the Fall. But is this true? Does Ellen White say that Christ's nature in the Wilderness of Temptation was like unfallen Adam's?

That is not what theose statements say at all. It is your assumption that they mean this, but you can't blame Ellen White for a false assumption.

Please prove or demonstrate from Ellen White's writings that she meant "sinful nature" or "fallen nature" when she referred to "evil propensity." Can you do this?

PS. After you have looked into the question, I will post my reply.

PSS. Nothing is parroted so much as anti-EGW material. Many people repeat accusations and criticims without even fully studying them to determine whether there is any truth to them. I have seen thousands of them on the Internet, and the problem is that they are repeated over and over even though the great majority of them have often been answered and resolved. But this is not unsual. The same problem occurs with respect to the Bible and the Bible's critics. Sad, sad, sad. But what to do.

[skyblue888]

I believe the contradiction disappears when one understands that what she meant was that though Jesus' flesh was sinful He never yielded to its drawing. That is why it is written that He condemned sin in the flesh. The Scripture does not say, "Let this flesh be upon you," (sinless flesh) but rather "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Phil.2:5. That mind in him emptied him of self. Though he inherited sinful flesh he never yielded to its drawing. We have.

He was tempted in all points like as we are, from within and from without, but He never yielded. If there were any propensity in him to sin, they were not his but ours which came from our sinful flesh which He took upon Himself but He overcame them all. Temptation from within or from without is not sin.

And we can overcome as He overcame since we have access to the same grace that was with Him while He was among us.

sky

[miz3]

This is an example of people attacking something they don't understand but think they do.

What does Ellen White mean by "evil propensity"? You apparently believe that it means "sinful nature." But is this true?

You also claim that the second statement is saying that Christ had the human, inner nature of Adam before the Fall. But is this true? Does Ellen White say that Christ's nature in the Wilderness of Temptation was like unfallen Adam's?

That is not what theose statements say at all. It is your assumption that they mean this, but you can't blame Ellen White for a false assumption.

Please prove or demonstrate from Ellen White's writings that she meant "sinful nature" or "fallen nature" when she referred to "evil propensity." Can you do this?

Whether "evil propensity" is "sinful nature" or not is not the critical part. However, to answer your thought, yes I think it they both mean the same. Whether it is true or not to me does make or break the question posed nor the position that I took in regard to the two statements.

The critical part is:

Statement One clearly and unambiguously states that Christ had a "sinful nature" like yours and mine. The sentence, "Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature" tells it all!

In contrast:

Statement Two states clearly and unambiguously that Jesus Christ had a nature like Adam in Eden before the Fall! The phrase that makes this true is ", as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."

In one place she says Christ had a "sinful nature" and in another place she states that Jesus Christ was like Adam in Eden (sinless nature). Jesus Christ cannot be both at the same time and be human.

I believe Ellen White contradicted herself on this topic!

[John317]

Awhile ago on another thread, you spoke of people being surface readers and not being willing to look deeply into what the Bible and Ellen White are saying,

I agree.

Now I would ask you if you are willing to check out the two so-called contradictory statements and see whether they are saying what you claim.

[miz3]

Quote:

(Ch. 14:30; Luke 1:31-35; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; Heb. 4:15.) 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. {5BC 1128.4}

OK, John317. Here is the complete paragraph.

Notice the underlined parts.

Jesus Christ was the "second Adam".

Like the first Adam, Jesus Christ was "pure, sinless being, without the a taint of sin upon him, he was in the image of God."

That is not what the DA page 49 says!

[miz3]

Quote:

These words do not refer to any human being, except to the Son of the infinite 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

1129

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. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the Rock Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity. {5BC 1128.6}

Again see the underlined part taken from the same source. Yet in DA page 49 it says that Jesus Christ had a "sinful nature" like you and I.

How can that which is called a "holy thing" then have a "sinful nature" like DA 49 states.

We are in addition told to be "warned from the ground" in making Jesus Christ as "one of ourselves".

Again this contradicts DA page 49.

[John317]

Keep studying. You have a long ways to go yet.

It would be better if we stay with those first two quotes before you bring up other quotes that you claim are also contradictions. There will be time to look at all the quotes, later.

Concentrate on the quotes about "evil propensities" and the one about Christ in the wilderness.

Do you have the Comprehensive Research Edition of Ellen White's Writings?

[John317]

Whether "evil propensity" is "sinful nature" or not is not the critical part.

How can you make this claim when you consider the following statement of yours:

Originally Posted By: miz3

I. The second statement says that there was no evil propensity (that is no sinful nature). The second statement says that his inner nature was like Adam in Eden (no fallen nature).

You are claiming that there's a contradiction because of how you define "evil propensity."

How then can you say that your understanding of "evil propensity" is not critical?

Please explain.

[Kevin H]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought "Big deal, what if she does" she did not claim to be infailable, and inspired writings do contadict each other. I am not a fundamentalist.

However those two statements are not a contradiction. They are two aspects of the nature of Christ. Jesus had his own unique nature. The Church argued over the nature of Christ for centuries and finally came to the truth. That Jesus had his own unique nature, with similarities and differences to Adam before the fall and similaritites and differences to us after the fall.

Many (not all) early Adventists were questioning the doctrine of the trinity and thus did not think much of the nature of Chirst. When focusing on one aspect of God (God the Father) we suffered the natural result of preaching "The Law, the law, the law" until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboah, and Mrs. White's solution was to bring in all the aspects of God, the trinity. This included taking the traditonal view of the nature of Christ. There was one author especially who she loved to quote who really put the traditional view in a beautiful way. Maybe someone here can help me out here, but I believe that his name was something like Melville, and I seem to recall that he was a Church of England theologian. I would not be surprised if both quotes are from this one writer that Mrs. White used.

Sadly, then the church just took for granted that the traditional view of the nature of Christ was the correct view. Then in the 1950s when Barhouse and Martin were talking to some of our representatives, they asked about our view of the nature of Christ. I wish that our representatives just simply said "The traditional view" have them read the Ellen White quotes and the writings of especially that one theologian she quoted from. Sadly instead they gave a partial answer. Elder Andresen realized that they gave a partial answer so wanted to point out the aspects of the answer that they left out. From what I have read I have a sneeking suspicition that all sided involved, The Adventist representatives, Elder Andresen, Martin and Barnhouse all held the same view. But because of the partial answer and Elder Andresen focusing on part of the answer that was missed, too many of us members of the Seventh-day Adventist church has left the truth and have come down on either one side or another. Miz3, your quote shows knowlege of the two apostisitys that we have fallen into, but does not show knowlege of the truth that Mrs. White was bringing to us right from main line Christianity from both Catholic-Protestantism. Otherwise you would not have posted this post and think that it was a contradiction. Had you lived before the QOD feasco you would not see these as a contradiction.

Miz3, if you want to make an issue out of contradictions, there are some excellent examples out there. This is NOT one of them. This is just a reflection of not knowing Church history.

[John317]

As you might have noticed by reading on other threads, Miz3 does not believe that Christ received the human nature of His mother, Mary. In other words, miz3 doesn't believe Christ was literally descended from David or from any other human being.

[Sonny]

FACT ONE: Ellen White contradicts herself.

FACT TWO: Ellen White also contradicts the Bible.

NOTHING COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR!

Fact one: miz3 contradicts himself

Fact two: miz3 especially contradicts the Bible

[ClubV12]

I don't see a contradiction here in the two quotes.

Much ado about nothing... moving on.

miz3, you always find plenty of hooks upon which to hang your doubts. Sister White was a messenger of the Lord, inspired, not personal opinion. If you cannot accept that fundamental fact, you will never be able to understand her writings or correctly interpret the bible. Keep looking for them and you will find mistakes and problems with inspiration, from all sources, under every rock you turn over.

I do hope you will find the peace in all this your looking for.

[miz3]

I don't see a contradiction here in the two quotes.

Can you then explain why they say two opposite views of Christ's nature?

[miz3]

Fact one: miz3 contradicts himself

Fact two: miz3 especially contradicts the Bible

Thank you Sonny for that personal attack rather than a cogent reply!

Just answer the question!

[miz3]

Quote:

*Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working 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..." DA 49;

By the way I took this quote cited in the above box from John317 who posted it on another thread!

NOTE: This particular statement is not found in editions of Desire of Ages printed in the 20th Century.

Why this statement was lifted from those editions I do not know!

Maybe John317 can explain!

[skyblue888]

Here is the full quote:

"It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take 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 working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His eartly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life." DA 49.

miz3 says:

By the way I took this quote cited in the above box from John317 who posted it on another thread!

NOTE: This particular statement is not found in editions of Desire of Ages printed in the 20th Century.

Why this statement was lifted from those editions I do not know!

Maybe John317 can explain!

__________________________

I have with me right now a 1940 and a 1946 edition of the Desire of Ages and they read exactly the same as the above.

And on page 116 we read, "The enticements which Christ resisted were those that we find it so difficult to withstand. They were urged upon him in as much greater degree as His character is superior to ours."

Here are a few more:

"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."

"He took upon himself fallen, suffering nature, degraded and defiled by sin." Youth's Instructor, Dec.20,1900

"He took humanity, uniting the offender with His divine nature." Ibid, July 29,1897.

"He consented to an actual union with man. Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature. Thus He made it possible for us to partake of His nature." RH Vol.4,201.

Thus consistently identifying the sinless Christ with a fallen nature, Mrs. White demonstrates her belief that He did take man's fallen nature without being corrupted by it.

sky

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Fact one: miz3 contradicts himself

Fact two: miz3 especially contradicts the Bible

Thank you Sonny for that personal attack rather than a cogent reply!

Just answer the question!

Speaking as moderator:

If it was a personal attack, I assure you I would edit it out. Sonny is referring to the argument and evidence, not to the person himself. The rules allow for criticism and "attacks" against evidence, arguments, and reasoning, but not against the person.

Personal attacks are like "you're a moron," "you're a liar," etc. These will be deleted. (People will leave the forum if they must face name-calling and personal denigration.)

However, the rules do allow for "Your statement is inaccurate," "your argument is invalid," etc.

It is always best to show the evidence when we tell people that their argument is invalid or when we tell them that they are contradicting the Bible, etc.

The trick here is to attack evidence and argument while at the same time being pleasant and kind and loving to the person whose post we are writing about. It can be done, believe it or not. :-)

[John317]

Quote:

*Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working 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..." DA 49;

By the way I took this quote cited in the above box from John317 who posted it on another thread!

NOTE: This particular statement is not found in editions of Desire of Ages printed in the 20th Century.

Why this statement was lifted from those editions I do not know!

Maybe John317 can explain!

I think you may be misunderstanding my statement in the above quote. The first part, "Christ took the humanity of His mother," is not part of Ellen White's writings. I am not quoting her in that statement. The actual quote from DA begins with the words, "[Christ] accepted the results of the working of the grat law of heredity..."

Therefore, the charge that DA was changed, or that a statement was lifted from DA, is inaccurate and unfounded.

However, the words of Ellen White do show that Christ assumed the human nature of His mother, for Mrs. White says that He assumed "such a heredity" as did "His earthly ancestors."

[miz3]

John317,

Can you explain why your quote of DA page 49, is in some editions but not in other editions?

It seems very strange that this would be so!

[skyblue888]

I have never seen one.

sky

[miz3]

*Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working 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..." DA 49;

This is what you posted John317.

Which part of this post is the actual words of Ellen White?

I thought the whole thing was an Ellen White quote from DA pg49. If it is not all from Ellen White then it changes the whole debate.

To avoid mix ups I like to isolate DIRECT QUOTES from my own words as much as possible. It is too easy for others to think that my own words are part of the quote when in fact they are not.

Does this make sense to you?

[Sonny]

Here's my favorite EGW statements on the gospel:

"In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. 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.”

"By His obedience to all the commandments of God, Christ wrought out a redemption for man. This was not done by going out of Himself to another, but by taking humanity into Himself. Thus Christ gave to humanity an existence out of Himself. To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption."

Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. ....

This is a great mystery, a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in all its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood. But the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness (The S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, vol. 5, p. 1113)

Christ could have done nothing during His earthly ministry in saving fallen man if the divine had not been blended with the human. The limited capacity of man cannot define this wonderful mystery—the blending of the two natures, the divine and the human. It can never be explained. Man must wonder and be silent. And yet man is privileged to be a partaker of the divine nature, and in this way he can to some degree enter into the mystery (Letter 5, 1889).

[John317]

I have 3 different editions of DA and the quote we speak of on page 49 is contained in all three editions. It is also contained in the edition on the CD-ROM of the Comprehensive Research of EGW's Writings. It is also contained in the Spanish edition, "El Deseado de Totas las Gentes," page 32.

So far as I know, the paragraph we're referring is in every edition of the Desire of Ages.

Perhaps you are talking about vol. 2 of The Spirit of Prophecy, which also deals with the life and teachings of Christ. If you have that volume, you will find similar statements from the pen of Ellen White about Christ's humanity, on page 39. There she says, "It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man..." "Fallen man" = sinful man. In other EGW quotes, you will references to Christ assuming "sinful nature," etc. For instance:

"He took upon Him our sinful nature." RH 12/15/96

PS. Sinful nature is not the same as "man's sinfulness." Christ did not assume man's sinfulness.

PSS. You (or anyone else) doesn't have to believe what Ellen White is teaching or saying; but this is just to make clear what she taught and believed.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

*Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working 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..." DA 49;

This is what you posted John317.

Which part of this post is the actual words of Ellen White?

I thought the whole thing was an Ellen White quote from DA pg49. If it is not all from Ellen White then it changes the whole debate.

I want you to look at the quote. Do you see where the quote marks are? They begin with the words, "accepted..." I don't know how you could miss it.

How exactly, in your opinion, does this change the "debate"? (I don't think of it as a debate. From my viewpoint, all my posts are "exchanges" and like a personal conversation. I don't like debates and would probably never take part in one about Christ and the Bible. In debates, people generally have a wrong attitude and are only concerned with "winning," not with learning or with telling the truth. I don't believe the Holy Spirit is generally in debate about Him or about Christ.)