ARE THESE ELLEN WHITE COMMENTS CONTRADICTORY?

[miz3]

I wanted to know which part of the quote I cited in OP for DA pg49 was your words and which part was actually Ellen White's words?

Could you please do this?

[skyblue888]

miz3 are you selective as to who comments? I just gave you the whole quote a little while ago.

sky

[miz3]

Thank you John317 for making that clear.

I did miss the quotation marks!

I took your words before the quotation marks as Ellen White's words.

It was in those words of yours that I saw a contradiction with the other quote for the Bible Commentary.

Now that I know they are your words and NOT Ellen White's words I see no contradiction in her stuff on this particular comparison between the two statements.

[John317]

Ellen White's words are in quotation marks.

[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

Did you miss this?

[John317]

OK, now let's talk about what Ellen White is saying in those quotes and in the others where she deals with the human nature of Christ. Shall we?

For instance, do you believe the following statement that I made in regard to Ellen White's views: "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"?

Also, what does she mean by "evil propensities"?

Again, never mind for the time being whether you believe what Ellen White taught on this subject. Let's just try our best to get at the truth of what she taught.

[skyblue888]

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

John317

_________________

Not sure what you mean here, John. Sinfulness is not sin in the action. We are born with a sinful nature. There is no difference between a nature that is sinful and the sinfulness of that nature. It simply means that our fallen nature has sinful tendencies. When Jesus took our fallen nature He took its sinfulness, the sinfulness of a sinful nature and yet He did no sin.

sky

[John317]

Excellent quotes, sky.

Do you believe all those quotes are in reference only to Christ's physical nature or is she talking about the moral nature of fallen man that Christ assumed?

In other words, what evidence do you know of that shows both the Bible and Ellen White taught that Christ assumed the human nature of His mother and of David and Abraham?

[miz3]

I already said that I made a mistake!

My mistake was not seeing the quotation marks John317 put in the paragraph.

Now that I see the quotation marks there is no longer any contradiction between Ellen White statements on this thread.

There is also no problem with editions of Desire of Ages in regard to page 49.

I hope this now clear!

[John317]

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

John317

_________________

Not sure what you mean here, John. Sinfulness is not sin in the action. We are born with a sinful nature. There is no difference between a nature that is sinful and the sinfulness of that nature. It simply means that our fallen nature has sinful tendencies. When Jesus took our fallen nature He took its sinfulness, the sinfulness of a sinful nature and yet He did no sin.

sky

Ellen White makes a distinction between taking man's sinful nature and man's "sinfulness". She says that Christ did not take man's sinfulness.

Here's an example of the distinction:

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or SINFULNESS; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet he TOOK upon Him our SINFUL NATURE." RH Dec. 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

[skyblue888]

I would assume that you have statements that say exactly that then. Don't remember seeing any. Could you share them again please? Thanks

sky

[John317]

OK.

But do you believe the following statement that I made in regard to Ellen White's views: "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"?

Also, what does she mean by "evil propensities"?

Please notice I am not asking if you believe what Ellen White wrote and taught. I am only asking if you believe this is what she believed.

[John317]

Here's an example of the distinction:

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or SINFULNESS; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet he TOOK upon Him our SINFUL NATURE." RH Dec. 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

There are other statements she made showing the distiction she made between "sinful nature" and "sinfulness."

"Guile or sinfulness" are qualities of the mind quite opposite to "pure and undefiled." So "sinfulness" is a function or state of the mind.

[skyblue888]

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or SINFULNESS; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet he TOOK upon Him our SINFUL NATURE." RH Dec. 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

There was no sinfulness on His divine side, to be sure, and though He took upon Him our sinful nature with its degradation and defilement He was not corrupted by it. That's the mystery, isn't it?

Sinful or sinfulness is the same to me. Christ overcame the sinfulness of our nature.

sky

[John317]

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or SINFULNESS; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet he TOOK upon Him our SINFUL NATURE." RH Dec. 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

There was no sinfulness on His divine side, to be sure, and though He took upon Him our sinful nature which is degraded and defiled He was not corrupted by it.

Sinful or sinfulness is the same to me. Christ overcame the sinfulness of our nature.

This is from the book, The Word Was Made Flesh, by Ralph Larson, page 16--

Quote:

The dictionaries define the suffix --ness as meaning a state of being. This is far beyond a tendency toward. It must involve the actual practice of sinning. Ellen White applies this term to humans, but never to Christ, lest she be understood as saying that Christ sinned. Observe:

In him was no guile nor sinfulness... yet He took upon Him our sinful nature.-- ST 7/30/1902

... taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.-- ST 5/29/01

She did not equate sinful with sinfulness, as some would today, and in this it must be conceded that she is following the dictionary.

[phkrause]

Here's an example of the distinction:

"Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or SINFULNESS; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet he TOOK upon Him our SINFUL NATURE." RH Dec. 15, 1896; and also RH August 22, 1907.

There are other statements she made showing the distiction she made between "sinful nature" and "sinfulness."

"Guile or sinfulness" are qualities of the mind quite opposite to "pure and undefiled." So "sinfulness" is a function or state of the mind.

[John317]

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!

Please carefully compare the following statements showing Ellen White's use of "propensity," "evil propensity," "passions," etc.---

You will see proof that Ellen White did not use "evil propensity" to mean "fallen" or "sinful nature." We cannot get rid of our sinful nature, yet she says "we need not retain one sinful propensity."

1) That your passions and appetites may be subject to the control of reason... Our natural propensities must be controlled, or we can never overcome as Christ overcame.-- 4 T 235

2) The appetite and passions should be restricted and under the control of an enlightened conscience.-- 3 T 491

3)... Enabling men to bring all their propensities under the control of the highter powers...-- 3 T 491

4) Every true Christian will have control of his appetite and passions.-- 3T 569-570

5) Nonsense and amusement-loving propensities should be discarded.-- MYP 42

6)We need not retain one sinful propensity.-- RH 4/24/1900

6) He [Christ] was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are.-- 2 T 509

7) He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions.--2 T 202

8) Not for a moment was there in Him an evil propensity. SDA BC V: 1128

9) Though He had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield to do one act which was not pure and elevating and noble.-- IHP 155.

10) But although their evil propensities may seem to them as precious as the right hand or the right eye, they must be separated from the worker, or he cannot be accepteable to God.-- TM 171-2.

11) He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical. (Roget's Thesaurus lists susceptibilities and propensities as synonyms.) RH 2/10/1885

Conclusion: We are not using her statement about propensities--- "Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity"--- in contradiction of her statements that Christ took the fallen nature of man.

[ClubV12]

As the quote, based on the evidence presented in this thread, is indeed in all issues of the Desire of Ages I'm left wondering:

miz3, what is your source for the statement the quote is missing from some editions of Desire of Ages? A question that needs an answer in view of the serious accusations.

[miz3]

miz3, what is your source for the statement the quote is missing from some editions of Desire of Ages? A question that needs an answer in view of the serious accusations.

I have already stated that I made a mistake! My mistake changes the whole picture. I no longer see a contradiction.

My mistake was to assume that some of John317's own words were actually apart of the Ellen White quote. I thought this because I didn't see the quote marks he inserted. So I was attributing John's words as belonging to Ellen White.

Since John's words are not Ellen White's words then I cannot hold her accountable for those words of John317's.

It was my mistake and not anyone else's!

[John317]

Are there any other statements by Ellen White that you consider a contradiction either of the Bible or of herself?

Also, do you still believe that Christ did not receive the human nature of His mother, Mary; that is, that Christ was not literally descended from David or from any other human being?

Gal. 4: 4 says that Christ was "born of woman." What purpose would such a statement serve except to tell us that Christ was a real human being, descended from other humans?

When John says that the deceiver and the antichrist do not confess the coming of Christ in the flesh, what kind of flesh does He mean? Is He arguing against people who claimed that Christ came as a real man with the same flesh as we have; or is John attacking the teaching that Christ was too pure to come down to the human level and take on flesh?

[Dr. Rich]

EGW said that Noah preached 120 years in P&P That is contradictory to what God told Noah to do as found in Genesis and what Jesus said in Matthew 24 about no one knew anything about what was going to happen.

[ClubV12]

Sorry about asking you about the source miz3, I misunderstood your earlier response to the source question. Didn't mean to rub it in...

[ClubV12]

"...no one knew anything about what was going to happen."

You know, that just defies logic. Wether he "preached" or not, you don't build a gigantic boat for 120 years without people asking questions! I mean really, people aint that stupid, it's not like it was a wharehouse or a home. That fella was up to something, and people were asking questions about it. The best "preaching" Noah was doing was exemplified in his "work" and his life.

[miz3]

Are there any other statements by Ellen White that you consider a contradiction either of the Bible or of herself?

Also, do you still believe that Christ did not receive the human nature of His mother, Mary; that is, that Christ was not literally descended from David or from any other human being?

Gal. 4: 4 says that Christ was "born of woman." What purpose would such a statement serve except to tell us that Christ was a real human being, descended from other humans?

When John says that the deceiver and the antichrist do not confess the coming of Christ in the flesh, what kind of flesh does He mean? Is He arguing against people who claimed that Christ came as a real man with the same flesh as we have; or is John attacking the teaching that Christ was too pure to come down to the human level and take on flesh?

I'll assume you are talking to me.

1. None off the top of my head. I actually do not give it much thought because I am out there scouring her writings looking to find contradictions. I believe my time can be put to better use. However, if something pops up and looks like a contradiction (like I thought in this case---but I was wrong) then I have no problem with noting that.

I believe that Ellen White received "inspired" messages from God. I also believe that she also wanted to share here opinions that she thought were correct and biblical in most of her writings. I see that this does not diminish her enormous contribution, to Truth, to the SDA Church, and to the society of her day. I have great respect for Ellen White although I know there are those on this website who think that I am not a "real" supporter of Ellen White. They are free to have and express their opinions in this regard but I believe I am a true supporter of Ellen White.

2. I still believe that Jesus Christ did not receive the human nature of His mother, Mary. I believe this because of what Scripture (the Bible) says. I believe also that Jesus Christ was a LEGAL descendent of Judah, David, etc. I also believe there is strong evidence that Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ was a LEGAL descendent of Levi, Aaron/Moses, etc.

I also believe that Mary was just an Incubator/Surrogate of the Holy Spirit's conception of the Messiah (Jesus Christ).

3. The purpose of Galatians 4:4 tells ONLY that Jesus Christ was totally human. Other texts tell us Jesus Christ at the same time was also totally Divine. However, Jesus Christ's humanity had a "sinless nature" (just like Adam before the fall).

4. What John means is that those who do NOT believe that Jesus Christ was fully human are the "antichrist". Since I believe that Jesus Christ was "fully human" then John is not talking about me. The two choices you propose in your question are not the only two ways to look at Jesus Christ's humanity.

I also believe that Jesus Christ actually existed and was not just some phantom 'savior' or some 'spirit' with a 'pretend' human covering or some other such cockamamie theory.

Jesus Christ actually existed as a REAL FULLY HUMAN person who also was/is at the very same time a REAL FULLY DIVINE BEING!

Jesus Christ actually went to an actual Cross and suffered the actual penalty of God's Wrath. In suffering God's Wrath Jesus Christ suffered this penalty NOT FOR HIS SINS, but suffered the penalty for MY SINS AND THE SINS OF ALL HUMANITY FOR ALL TIME!

There are many cockamamie theories that are clearly NOT BIBLICAL! My views are NOT ONE OF THEM!

My views fit perfectly into John's views! Why? Because my views came from the Bible which is the Source of my study!

[Dr. Rich]

Good post miz3! BTW, Matt. 11:11 is proof that your understanding is correct in that while Jesus was fully human and 'born' by Mary, His real Mother was the Holy Spirit.