Adventist view on the Nature of Christ

[hobie]

I am studying this subject on the Adventist view of the Nature of Christ, and giving what I am finding, but want everyone's input.

Here is what Adventist theologians and leaders as well as members, tend to lean toward, the postlapsarian view affirming that Christ?s human nature was fully human, could be tempted, and yet remained sinless. This allows Him to be both a perfect example and a perfect Redeemer

Postlapsarian (Fallen Nature) ? Christ?s human nature was identical to ours after the Fall, inheriting weaknesses and a predisposition to sin. This view emphasizes that His ability to be tempted from without and remain sinless is the basis for His example and atonement

Adventists hold to the belief that Christ took on the nature of man after the Fall, in its weakened state. Adventists believe that Christ, the 'last Adam,' possessed on His human side, a nature like that of the 'first man Adam,' a nature free from every defiling taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, and that nature was handicapped by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's body and nervous system and environment. He took the flesh of sinful man, and overcame where man failed, overthrew sin in the flesh. He accepted the limitations and conditions of our common humanity.

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam - that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us - feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations.

Here is a explanation by ?ngel Manuel Rodr?guez on the Adventist church view of the nature of Christ :

Our Adventist Statement of Fundamental Beliefs summarizes that which the church holds to be biblical truth around the world. It says: "God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14]. . . . Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ [Heb. 2:14]. . . . He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God [Heb. 4:15]. In infinite love and mercy "God made Christ who knew no sin, to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21).

Those statements attest that, first, Jesus was divine; second, that He became what He was not, truly human; and, third, that He knew no sin, and was without sin even though He faced severe temptations.

And here from the SDA Bible Commentary: "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.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}

[Kevin H]

The Christian church argued for centuries over the nature of Christ, and eventually (I believe through the leading of the Holy Spirit) came to the conclusion that Jesus had his own unique nature that is not like Adam's before the fall and us after the fall. That there are elements of both, but that he cannot be described as having either. Jesus needed rest, food, water, could catch cold etc. but he did not have any tendency to sin. He did not have the "sinful nature." That we are sinners because we have the sinful nature, and Jesus did not have this. 

For some specifics, all sin is selfishness, and even our best is still tainted with selfishness. Jesus did not have any taint of selfishness. I like the Ellen White quote "There is in man a disposition to esteem himself more highly than others, to serve self, to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit." I also like what the philosopher/poet Eli Sigel when he said "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world." I understand these to be perfect definitions for the sinful nature. Jesus did not have this disposition in himself in the slightest. 

As a majority (no, not all of them) of our pioneers questioned the trinity, they ended up making Jesus something less than God himself. As they were seeing the importance of returning to the law of God, especially  the neglected Sabbath, and also trying to understand Jesus from a non-trinitarian position, we made the error of seeing Jesus' role being more our example. We sadly gave up the traditional understanding as the church came to over the centuries. In our "new" view of Jesus, we saw him as sharing with us the nature of us after the fall, and showing us that we can indeed over come. When you don't have the trinity which gives a tension between the members of the Godhead, we end up picking one aspect of the trinity and make that aspect to be God in total. While they don't use our language, when we look at Eastern Religions, they are worshiping God the Holy Spirit as God in total. Here in the west, we tend to make God the Father, God as power and authority as God in total, and the natural result is to preach the law the law the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa, and we end up making Jesus's role to be fully in submission to the Father and to the law the law the law just the way that we need to submit and to teach us that we can submit to this level. This lead to the 1888 crisis. 

Mrs. White took a lot of the blame of the 1888 crisis on herself, that she did not share the issues of the great controversy as she should have. In response she moved the trinity from an unpopular idea that only a minority of our members believed to the center of her developing the great controversy visions into a philosophy. 

Many of our members had trouble with this. Now, another debated issue in our church was how does inspiration work, whether the "Fundamentalists" were right or wrong.  Leave this thought here for a moment. 

Many of our leaders were shocked as to how Mrs. White gave a fair amount of support to the message of Jones and Wagner. They wanted her to uphold the tradition that developed in Adventism that lead to 1888. Many of these, such as Elder Butler and his nephew Elder Washburn needed to take some time off to wrestle with this issue. While Butler and Washburn were in agreement in their dislike of the 1888 message, Elder Butler was an anti-Fundamentalist and had a more liberal view of how inspiration worked. His nephew, Elder Wagner, was a very strict  Fundamentalist. I do not have the background or position to do this study, but both men struggled with their anti-1888 message views and how to become more accommodating to the 1888 message. I wonder what the similarities and differences between the conclusion of each man's struggle. Anyway, at least Elder Washburn came to a conclusion that was still very much the views that lead up to 1888, yet, somehow gives an acknowledgement and compromise with 1888. Elder Washburn never accepted the trinity, and from what I've seen does not appear to have any major changes from his views before to after 1888. He and others have come to this view and has through the years evolved this thought into what has taken the names of say "Historic Adventists" and "Last Generation Adventists." Elder Andresen came from this flavor of Adventism, although he wrote to and visited Mrs. White to ask if she had become a trinitarian and was convinced that she indeed did become a trinitarian, and he accepted a version of the trinity, but fit his "trinitarian" views to otherwise fit this version of Adventism, and he brought the trinity into this version of Adventism, and did understand Jesus, although God, to have had the sinful nature while on earth. 

On the other hand, Mrs. White took more of a traditional understanding of the trinity (although, it appears to look more like one of the theories of the trinity that we find within Eastern Orthodoxy rather than Roman Catholic.) She began writing about the nature of Jesus. She liked the views of one theologian (I don't really remember his name, but it always reminds me of the name of the author Herman Melville,) But whether she's quoting this author, or others, they all hold in common that they were strong supporters and describers of the orthodox view I tried to explain in the first paragraph. She picked some of what should have been the best quotes of this orthodox view. Sadly, there are those who nick-pick her words to try to make them more align with Washburn and Andresen's view, and they need to ignore the sources that she was copying. Despite those who want to align her words with Washburn/Andresen's view, the mainline Adventist church turned to the orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. 

In the 1950s there was a discussion with some Evangelical leaders that lead to the book "Questions on Doctrine". One question they had was how do Seventh-day Adventists understand the nature of Jesus. I understand Questions on Doctrine to have some strong and weak points. I've sided with our scholars who suggest that our leaders should have admitted how many of our pioneers questioned the trinity, but as we studied and grew, we came to accept the trinity and as we accepted the trinity we came to accept the traditional orthodox view of the nature of Jesus, and give the Ellen White quotes that we find in the back of Questions on Doctrine, and simply leave it there.  But sadly, the leaders, trying to impress the Evangelicals, tended to focus on the divinity of Jesus at the expense of the humanity of Jesus, and thus ended up giving a half truth. Andresen and others then pointed out this unbalanced view, but their followers (and somewhat Andresen, but from what I've seen and been taught, more so the followers) have latched on to the missing part of the truth at the expense of the part of the truth that our leaders over did in this discussion. Sadly, this has caused us to divide the truth into two halves that some of us latch totally on to one side or the other.  (Also, I don't know if this had happened by the 1950s, but in recent years, I've been noticing among Evangelicals a gradual drifting away from the orthodox view and more to the unbalanced view we mistakenly fell into when giving the Questions on Doctrine discussion.)

[Hanseng]

9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

The Christian church argued for centuries over the nature of Christ, and eventually (I believe through the leading of the Holy Spirit) came to the conclusion that Jesus had his own unique nature that is not like Adam's before the fall and us after the fall.

Very sensible way of looking at it.

A.T. Jones introduced me to the fallen nature view through his book "The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection."As I recall, he relied heavily upon this verse to justify his view:

 14 ¶  Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15  And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Hebrews 2

Most SDA who hold to the view espoused in the Consecrated Way also believe in sinless perfectionism. They reason that since Jesus overcame sin with a nature like ours, we can do the same. Any true Christian hopes to overcome sin.  The pragmatists, based on their own experience, recognize total victory over sin with a fallen nature is akin to moving a mountain by faith. Not necessarily impossible but no indication it has ever happened. Sinless perfectionists simply say that this experience is reserved for the final generation.

In addition to the text from Hebrews 2, cited above, Romans 8 succors sinless perfectionists. Jesus was sent  "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Context indicates that "sinless flesh" is that described in Romans 7. People with sinful flesh are, by nature, captive to the law of sin. We are unable to perform that which is good. We do evil that we don't ant to do. This is the law of sin and death. It works in the being of all born into this world, except Jesus.

 Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14: 11-15) and Elijah (James 5:17) all possessed passions like every other human. "Like passions" is the way the KJV puts it. Paul refused worship from the Lycaonians due to having a nature like theirs. Even though Elijah shared a nature with every other sinner, he was still translated. He certainly wasn't sinless, nor was he a part of the final generation.  There we have an example of a man who was not sinless and was translated.

The Greek word translated as "like passions" is not the same word used in Romans 8, which says Jesus was sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh" "Likeness" has a wide range of meaning, including  "to resemble," as evinced by Judges 8:18 in the LXX. The Greek word comparing  Paul, Barnabas and Elijah to other humans compared oranges and oranges. The word translated as likeness in Romans 8:3 does not. It  is also used in Philippians 2:7 Jesus was made in the "likeness of men" [who all have sinful flesh]. Paul refused worship because his nature had passions like ours. Jesus did not refuse worship because he did not share the passions of fallen man, i.e., the law of sin and death was not at work in Him.

[Hanseng]

13 minutes ago, Hanseng said:

Context indicates that "sinless flesh" is that described in Romans 7.

Should be "sinful flesh" is that described in Romans 7.

[hobie]

On 6/29/2026 at 11:38 PM, Kevin H said:

The Christian church argued for centuries over the nature of Christ, and eventually (I believe through the leading of the Holy Spirit) came to the conclusion that Jesus had his own unique nature that is not like Adam's before the fall and us after the fall. That there are elements of both, but that he cannot be described as having either. Jesus needed rest, food, water, could catch cold etc. but he did not have any tendency to sin. He did not have the "sinful nature." That we are sinners because we have the sinful nature, and Jesus did not have this. 

For some specifics, all sin is selfishness, and even our best is still tainted with selfishness. Jesus did not have any taint of selfishness. I like the Ellen White quote "There is in man a disposition to esteem himself more highly than others, to serve self, to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit." I also like what the philosopher/poet Eli Sigel when he said "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world." I understand these to be perfect definitions for the sinful nature. Jesus did not have this disposition in himself in the slightest. 

As a majority (no, not all of them) of our pioneers questioned the trinity, they ended up making Jesus something less than God himself. As they were seeing the importance of returning to the law of God, especially  the neglected Sabbath, and also trying to understand Jesus from a non-trinitarian position, we made the error of seeing Jesus' role being more our example. We sadly gave up the traditional understanding as the church came to over the centuries. In our "new" view of Jesus, we saw him as sharing with us the nature of us after the fall, and showing us that we can indeed over come. When you don't have the trinity which gives a tension between the members of the Godhead, we end up picking one aspect of the trinity and make that aspect to be God in total. While they don't use our language, when we look at Eastern Religions, they are worshiping God the Holy Spirit as God in total. Here in the west, we tend to make God the Father, God as power and authority as God in total, and the natural result is to preach the law the law the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa, and we end up making Jesus's role to be fully in submission to the Father and to the law the law the law just the way that we need to submit and to teach us that we can submit to this level. This lead to the 1888 crisis. 

Mrs. White took a lot of the blame of the 1888 crisis on herself, that she did not share the issues of the great controversy as she should have. In response she moved the trinity from an unpopular idea that only a minority of our members believed to the center of her developing the great controversy visions into a philosophy. 

Many of our members had trouble with this. Now, another debated issue in our church was how does inspiration work, whether the "Fundamentalists" were right or wrong.  Leave this thought here for a moment. 

Many of our leaders were shocked as to how Mrs. White gave a fair amount of support to the message of Jones and Wagner. They wanted her to uphold the tradition that developed in Adventism that lead to 1888. Many of these, such as Elder Butler and his nephew Elder Washburn needed to take some time off to wrestle with this issue. While Butler and Washburn were in agreement in their dislike of the 1888 message, Elder Butler was an anti-Fundamentalist and had a more liberal view of how inspiration worked. His nephew, Elder Wagner, was a very strict  Fundamentalist. I do not have the background or position to do this study, but both men struggled with their anti-1888 message views and how to become more accommodating to the 1888 message. I wonder what the similarities and differences between the conclusion of each man's struggle. Anyway, at least Elder Washburn came to a conclusion that was still very much the views that lead up to 1888, yet, somehow gives an acknowledgement and compromise with 1888. Elder Washburn never accepted the trinity, and from what I've seen does not appear to have any major changes from his views before to after 1888. He and others have come to this view and has through the years evolved this thought into what has taken the names of say "Historic Adventists" and "Last Generation Adventists." Elder Andresen came from this flavor of Adventism, although he wrote to and visited Mrs. White to ask if she had become a trinitarian and was convinced that she indeed did become a trinitarian, and he accepted a version of the trinity, but fit his "trinitarian" views to otherwise fit this version of Adventism, and he brought the trinity into this version of Adventism, and did understand Jesus, although God, to have had the sinful nature while on earth. 

On the other hand, Mrs. White took more of a traditional understanding of the trinity (although, it appears to look more like one of the theories of the trinity that we find within Eastern Orthodoxy rather than Roman Catholic.) She began writing about the nature of Jesus. She liked the views of one theologian (I don't really remember his name, but it always reminds me of the name of the author Herman Melville,) But whether she's quoting this author, or others, they all hold in common that they were strong supporters and describers of the orthodox view I tried to explain in the first paragraph. She picked some of what should have been the best quotes of this orthodox view. Sadly, there are those who nick-pick her words to try to make them more align with Washburn and Andresen's view, and they need to ignore the sources that she was copying. Despite those who want to align her words with Washburn/Andresen's view, the mainline Adventist church turned to the orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. 

In the 1950s there was a discussion with some Evangelical leaders that lead to the book "Questions on Doctrine". One question they had was how do Seventh-day Adventists understand the nature of Jesus. I understand Questions on Doctrine to have some strong and weak points. I've sided with our scholars who suggest that our leaders should have admitted how many of our pioneers questioned the trinity, but as we studied and grew, we came to accept the trinity and as we accepted the trinity we came to accept the traditional orthodox view of the nature of Jesus, and give the Ellen White quotes that we find in the back of Questions on Doctrine, and simply leave it there.  But sadly, the leaders, trying to impress the Evangelicals, tended to focus on the divinity of Jesus at the expense of the humanity of Jesus, and thus ended up giving a half truth. Andresen and others then pointed out this unbalanced view, but their followers (and somewhat Andresen, but from what I've seen and been taught, more so the followers) have latched on to the missing part of the truth at the expense of the part of the truth that our leaders over did in this discussion. Sadly, this has caused us to divide the truth into two halves that some of us latch totally on to one side or the other.  (Also, I don't know if this had happened by the 1950s, but in recent years, I've been noticing among Evangelicals a gradual drifting away from the orthodox view and more to the unbalanced view we mistakenly fell into when giving the Questions on Doctrine discussion.)

I hate to tell you but if Christ did not have our nature then the whole experience of Him coming down as 'fully man' for us and to die on the cross was a charade. Need to rethink that..

[hobie]

On 6/30/2026 at 9:20 AM, Hanseng said:

Very sensible way of looking at it.

A.T. Jones introduced me to the fallen nature view through his book "The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection."As I recall, he relied heavily upon this verse to justify his view:

 14 ¶  Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15  And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Hebrews 2

Most SDA who hold to the view espoused in the Consecrated Way also believe in sinless perfectionism. They reason that since Jesus overcame sin with a nature like ours, we can do the same. Any true Christian hopes to overcome sin.  The pragmatists, based on their own experience, recognize total victory over sin with a fallen nature is akin to moving a mountain by faith. Not necessarily impossible but no indication it has ever happened. Sinless perfectionists simply say that this experience is reserved for the final generation.

In addition to the text from Hebrews 2, cited above, Romans 8 succors sinless perfectionists. Jesus was sent  "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Context indicates that "sinless flesh" is that described in Romans 7. People with sinful flesh are, by nature, captive to the law of sin. We are unable to perform that which is good. We do evil that we don't ant to do. This is the law of sin and death. It works in the being of all born into this world, except Jesus.

 Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14: 11-15) and Elijah (James 5:17) all possessed passions like every other human. "Like passions" is the way the KJV puts it. Paul refused worship from the Lycaonians due to having a nature like theirs. Even though Elijah shared a nature with every other sinner, he was still translated. He certainly wasn't sinless, nor was he a part of the final generation.  There we have an example of a man who was not sinless and was translated.

The Greek word translated as "like passions" is not the same word used in Romans 8, which says Jesus was sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh" "Likeness" has a wide range of meaning, including  "to resemble," as evinced by Judges 8:18 in the LXX. The Greek word comparing  Paul, Barnabas and Elijah to other humans compared oranges and oranges. The word translated as likeness in Romans 8:3 does not. It  is also used in Philippians 2:7 Jesus was made in the "likeness of men" [who all have sinful flesh]. Paul refused worship because his nature had passions like ours. Jesus did not refuse worship because he did not share the passions of fallen man, i.e., the law of sin and death was not at work in Him.

I like what A. T Jones wrote as he goes deep. And here are statements on the issue from Ellen G. White:

 

I. Deity and Nature of Christ

1.One With Eternal Father. "Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,'one in nature, in character, in purpose,' the only being that could enter into all the consels and purposes of God. 'His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The might God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of peace' (Isa. 9:6). His 'goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting' (Micah 5:2). Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34.

2. Christ and Father of One Substance. "The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, 'I and my Father are one.' The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes. The Signs of the Times,

3. One in Power and Authority. "Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father." The Great Controversy, p. 495.

4. Equal With the Father. "To save the transgressor of God's law, Christ, the one equal with the Father, came to live heaven before men, that they might learn to know what it is to have heaven in the heart. He illustrated what man must be to be worthy of the precious boon of the life that measures with the life of God." Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 179.

5. Possesses God's Attributes. "The only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of his Son, equal with himself, possessing the attributes of God. Though so highly exalted, Christ consented to assume human nature, that he might work in behalf of man and reconcile to God his disloyal subject. When man rebelled, Christ pleaded his merit in his behalf, and became man's substitute and surety. He undertook to combat the powers of darkness in man's behalf, and he prevailed, conquering the enemy of our souls, and presenting to man the cup of salvation." The Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1892, p. 690.

6. God in Highest Sense. "The world was made by him, 'and without him was not anything made that was made.' And without him was not anything made that was made.' If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. . . .
"There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible." The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. p. 8.

7. Eternal and Self-Existent. "The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son, and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both." Patriarch and Prophets, p. 36.

8. Christ Our Everlasting Father. "However much a shepherd may love his sheep, he loves his sons and daughters more. Jesus is not only our shepherd; He is our 'everlasting Father.' And He says, 'I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father.' John 10:14, 15 R.V. What a statement is this "the only-begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be 'the Man that is My fellow' (Zech. 13:7), the communion between Him and the eternal God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth!" The Desire of Ages, p. 483.

9. Life Original, Unborrowed, Underived. "Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jessu declared, 'I am the resurrection, and the life.' In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. 'He that hath the Son hath life.' 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life." Ibid., p. 530.

10. The Self-Existent One. "Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, 'whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.'" Ibid., p. 469.

11. Redeemer Equal With God. "The world's Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the authority of God. He declared that he had no existence separate from the Father. The authority by which he spoke, and wrought miracles, was expressly his own, yet he assures us that he and the Father are one." The Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1890, p. 1.

12. Eternal, Self-existent, Uncreated. "Jehovah, the eternal, self-existent, uncreated One, Himself the source and sustainer of all, is alone entitled to supreme reverence and worship." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 305.

13. Jehovah Is Name of Christ. "Jehovah is the name given to Christ. 'Behold, God is my salvation,' writes the prophet Isaiah; 'I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; He also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. And in that day ye shall say, Praise the Lord, call upon His name, declare His doings among the people, make mention that His name is exalted,' 'In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee. Trust ye in the Lord forever; for in the Lord JEHOVAH is everlasting strength.'" The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899, p. 2.

14. Jehovah Emmanuel Our Saviour. "The heavenly gates are again to be lifted up, and with ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of holy ones, our Saviour will come forth as King of kings and Lord of lords. Jehovah Immanuel 'shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one.'" Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, p. 160.

15. Jehovah Emmanuel Is Christ. "This is the reward of all who follow Christ. Jehovah Emmanuel—He 'in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' in whom dwells 'all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:3, 9)—to be brought into sympathy with Him, to know Him, to possess Him, as the heart opens more and more to receive His attributes; to know His love and power, to possess the unsearchable riches of Christ, to comprehend more and more 'what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God,' (Eph. 3:18, 19)—'this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord.'" Ibid., p. 57.

16. One With Father in Nature. Before the entrance of sin among the angels: "Christ the Word, the only-begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,'one in nature, in character, and in purpose,' the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings." The Great Controversy, p. 493.

17. Rejection of Deity Fatal. "If men reject the testimony of the inspired Scriptures concerning the deity of Christ, it is in vain to argue the point with them; for no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. 'The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' 1 Corinthians 2:14. None who hold this error can have a true conception of the character or the mission of Christ, or of the great plan of God for man's redemption." Ibid., p. 524.....excerpted from Christ's Place in the Godhead http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Christ.htm

[Hanseng]

41 minutes ago, hobie said:

I hate to tell you but if Christ did not have our nature then the whole experience of Him coming down as 'fully man' for us and to die on the cross was a charade. Need to rethink that..

Not sure what you mean by this You can't mean that Jesus had the law of sin working in his humanity. Romans 7 is very clear that it is impossible to not sin when one is comprised of that nature. Paul say in chapter 8 that he had the "likeness of sinful flesh." He looked like every other sinful being. Adam possessed a human nature minus the law of sin, yet he still sinned. He made a choice without a predisposition to sin, something that none of us can do. We are predisposed to sin. As Job put it, we go astray as soon as we are born. Jesus was not like that.

If you think that EGW believed and taught that Jesus possessed a nature exactly like ours, subject to the law of sin, either you misunderstand her or she was wrong. Paul, Barnabas, and Elijah had a nature like ours, evinced by the translation "like passions." Scripture does not say that Jesus had "like passions" with ours. 

[hobie]

11 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Not sure what you mean by this You can't mean that Jesus had the law of sin working in his humanity. Romans 7 is very clear that it is impossible to not sin when one is comprised of that nature. Paul say in chapter 8 that he had the "likeness of sinful flesh." He looked like every other sinful being. Adam possessed a human nature minus the law of sin, yet he still sinned. He made a choice without a predisposition to sin, something that none of us can do. We are predisposed to sin. As Job put it, we go astray as soon as we are born. Jesus was not like that.

If you think that EGW believed and taught that Jesus possessed a nature exactly like ours, subject to the law of sin, either you misunderstand her or she was wrong. Paul, Barnabas, and Elijah had a nature like ours, evinced by the translation "like passions." Scripture does not say that Jesus had "like passions" with ours. 

What he is saying is that Christ was not like us or man, so then Satan would have been right, man could not overcome sin. Satan would have rightly claimed that Christ was given a advantage we dont have, so Christ failed to overcome sin as man. We find it constantly in Ellen Whites writings, here is in Desire of Ages..

"Satan had pointed to Adam's sin as proof that God's law was unjust, and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.

https://www.ellenwhite.info/books/ellen-g-white-book-desire-of-ages-da-12.htm

[phkrause]

12 hours ago, hobie said:

I hate to tell you but if Christ did not have our nature then the whole experience of Him coming down as 'fully man' for us and to die on the cross was a charade. Need to rethink that..

I think you need to reread what Kevin is saying! And also read what Hanseng posted!!

[hobie]

Well lets read on in SOP, here is more from her writings..

"In describing the time when Jesus made the announcement of the plan of redemption to the unfallen angels, she writes that He told them that - He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear on earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted in His own experience with the various temptations with which men would be beset, that He might know how to succour those who should be tempted. (Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1., p. 24.).

This was difficult for the angels to accept, and they offered themselves as substitutes; but Jesus informed them that the life of an angel could not pay the debt for sin. He, however, assured them that they would have a part to play in the plan for man's redemption. Note carefully the words   what Jesus Himself said would take place:

Jesus also told them that they should have a part to act, to be with Him, and at different times strengthen Him. That He should take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs (ibid, p. 25; ).

In the 1870s as Ellen White began to write more fully on the life and mission of Jesus Christ, comprehensive statements on the Incarnation appeared. Except for two articles on the subject of tithing, all the written material from her pen in the Review for the year 1874 was on the subject of the plan of redemption and the temptations of Christ. In these articles the following specific statements are to be found which define the nature of the humanity Christ took upon Himself in becoming man.

The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam....

What love! What amazing condescension! The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity! He would place His feet in Adam's steps. He would take man's fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who (had) triumphed over Adam (R & H, Feb. 24, 1874).

The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wondered four thousand years from Eden and from the 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. 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's behalf, four 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 earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed. . . .

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 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 depths of human woe, that he might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him (ibid., Jul), 28, 1874).

The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and, identified itself with the weaknesses and necessities of fallen man, while His divine nature grasped the Eternal. . Christ's work was to reconcile man to God through His human nature, and God to man through His divine nature (ibid., August 4, 1874).

Because man fallen could not overcome Satan with his human strength, Christ came from the royal courts of Heaven to help him with His human and divine strength combined. Christ knew that Adam in Eden, with his superior advantages, might have withstood the temptations of Satan, and conquered him. He also knew that it is not possible for man, out of Eden, separated from the light and love of God since the Fall, to resist the temptations of Satan in his own strength. In order to bring hope to man, and save him from complete ruin, He humbled Himself to take man's nature, that, with His divine power combined with the human, He might reach man where he is. He obtains for the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that strength which it is impossible for them to obtain for themselves, that in His name they may overcome the temptations of Satan (ibid., August 18, 1874).

How few can understand the love of God for the fallen race in that He withheld not His divine Son from taking upon Him the humiliation of humanity" (ibid., March 18, 1875). 

The victory gained was designed, not only to set an example to those who have fallen under the power of appetite, but to qualify the Redeemer for His special work of reaching to the very depths of human woe. By experiencing in Himself the strength of Satan's temptation, and of human sufferings and infirmities, He would know better how to succour those who should put forth efforts to help themselves (ibid.).

In 1878, Ellen White wrote a letter to a young man setting Christ before him as the "great Exemplar." She quoted Hebrews 2:17 that "Christ was made like unto His brethren." Then she commented:

“He felt both joy and grief as they feel. His body was susceptible to weariness, as yours. His mind, like yours, could be harassed and perplexed. If you have hardships, so did He. Satan could tempt Him. His enemies could annoy Him. . . . Jesus was sinless and had no dread of the consequences of sin. With this exception His condition was as yours. You have not a difficulty that did not press with equal weight upon Him, not a sorrow that His heart has not experienced. His feelings could be hurt with neglect, with indifferences of professed friends, as easily as yours. Is your pathway thorny? Christ's was so in a tenfold sense. Are you distressed? So was He. How well fitted was Christ to be an example.” (Letter 17, 1878)

About this time, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, was published. In this volume a specific contrast between man's fallen nature and Christ's humanity is made. Ellen G. White wrote:

Our Saviour identifies Himself with our needs and weaknesses, in that He became a suppliant, a mighty petitioner, seeking from His Father fresh supplies of strength, to come forth invigorated and refreshed, braced for duty and trial. He is our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. His humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege (pp. 201-202; ).

Commenting further on the prayer life of Jesus, she penned the following:

He prayed for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings, which are so common with humanity. He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are. Jesus endured agony which required help and support from His Father (ibid., pp. 508-509).

As one reads the last two references, it would appear these statements are at variance with what had been written prior to, and contemporary, with these statements. There is neither conflict nor a contradiction when one understands how Ellen White understood and used the word "passion." The following paragraph illustrates her use and understanding of the word as well as the phrase - "the inclinations of the natural heart." It reads:

No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must first be gained; the soul must purpose the sinful act, before passion can dominate over reason, or iniquity triumph over conscience. Temptation, however strong, is never an excuse for sin. ... Cast yourself, helpless, unworthy, upon Jesus, and claim His very promise. The Lord will hear. He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart, and He will help in every time of need (op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 177; }.

Another statement defining the nature of the humanity Christ assumed appeared in 1877. In this statement a clear distinction is made between "form" and "nature" as pertaining to fallen man, and what Christ accepted as a part of the plan devised by the Godhead for man's redemption. Christ accepted both the "form" and "nature" of fallen man. It reads:

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 fierce temptation, that He might understand how to succour those that should be tempted (Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 2, p. 39;).

[hobie]

And there is more, but this should suffice to make the point..

[Hanseng]

28 minutes ago, hobie said:

For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.

Hobie, I understand EGW in light of what the Bible plainly says. I don't try to interpret Scripture in light of what EGW says. It is not unusual for people to do that, hence the confusion over issues such as this. If you read and thought about the Biblical evidence I presented in the above post and still prefer what you think Sr. White said, I'm sorry for that. The Bible is much easier to understand than what she said on this topic. I wish you well in your journey.

[hobie]

I know what rejection of SOP looks like, we shall see at the end whether she was giving what was from God or what was from man.