You are on page 1of 63

The Dilemma of the Nature of Christ

A comparison of the SDARMs Christology and that of the Pioneers

In reviewing our past history, having traveled over every step of


advance to our present standing, I can say, Praise God! As I see what
the Lord has wrought, I am filled with astonishment, and with
confidence in Christ as leader. We have nothing to fear for the future,
except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching
in our past history. LS 196.2 (View the challenge near the end)
Adventism had a clear understanding of the nature of Christ for more than 50
years. But with the pressure of two evangelical writers of the 1940’s and 1950’s, a
new view began to take shape, which has apparently crossed the gulf between the
Adventist church and the Reform Movement. Statements, which had been
understood clearly, since they had been given, suddenly took on opposite
meanings.
How could that be? Did reality suddenly begin to distort? Or did intellectual
dishonesty have something to do with this apparent distortion? If it hasn’t
become clear to the readers by the time they have finished this letter, then we
need to plead even more for the Holy Spirit, for He was absent as we read it. Also
the unfolding of events, included near the end, will also help us to understand
why we have seen this monumental shift in theology.
Sr. White gave clear and concise statements which we will examine and which
anyone, with an average education in the English language, can understand.
As one of us He was to give an example of obedience. For this He
took upon Himself our nature, and passed through our experiences.
"In all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren."
Heb. 2:17. If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure,
then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as
insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was "in all points tempted like as
we are." Heb. 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are subject.
And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to
us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given
Him from God. He says, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law
is within My heart." Ps. 40:8. As He went about doing good, and healing
all who were afflicted by Satan, He made plain to men the character of
God's law and the nature of His service. His life testifies that it is
possible for us also to obey the law of God. DA 24.2
Why was it so important that Christ be made like unto us in all things, and
pass through our experiences, except in sinning? Could Christ have given us an
example of how a person, with hereditary weaknesses toward sin can overcome
these sinful tendencies if He had not had these same weaknesses or tendencies?
Paul and Sr. White said He could not have been our example if He had not taken
our nature and passed through our experiences (DA 24). If Christ had not
inherited these sinful tendencies he could have shown us how a person, who was
1
born with no inherited sinful tendencies, can overcome temptation. The first Adam
could have benefited from such an example. But what kind of example would that
be for those of us who have to struggle against a sinful flesh? Fortunately this was
not the case. Since he came with the same sinful flesh (sinful tendencies) which
we are born with, He is an example to us that we should be able to overcome
temptation the same way He did. He is, therefore, our example. He has shown us
how to live a sinless life, in sinful flesh; with the same inherited tendencies we are
born with (DA, p. 49). We needed a Savior who knows by experience how to
succor us.
“If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon
this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for
us.” DA 24.2
It was a crucial point in the plan of salvation that He accept the laws of
heredity and receive the tendencies of the flesh which we are born with that He
could know how to succor us. Only thus could He prove to Satan and the universe
that man, in the weaknesses of his sinful flesh, can obey God’s law by faith and
the surrender of the will. He took the nature we take and thus was an example
which we can follow. Had He taken a nature without the hereditary tendencies of
His ancestors, which we receive from our ancestors, according to the laws of
heredity, then He could not have been our example in all things. He could have
been an example only to those who are born without hereditary sinful tendencies.
How many of us are born without these sinful tendencies?
I thank God that we do indeed have a Savior who was willing to be in all
things made like unto His brethren, who passed through our experiences, and
was in all points tempted like as we are, endured every trial to which we are
subject. Because of this, He is qualified to be our example in all things. His life
of constant victory testifies that it is possible for us also to live victorious
lives. And for Him to be a fully qualified example for us to follow, and show us
where we too can find the power we need to be overcomers, He had to depend on
the Father for the power to overcome just as we do.
In what points are we tempted? We each know the points on which we are
tempted. He was temped in all points like as we are. Yet, because He kept His
will surrendered, He never bent in the slightest degree towards the doing of evil, or
towards manifesting rebellion against God. There was no responding chord to
Satan’s temptations in the mind of Christ. Thus He was able to maintain the
sinlessness of His humanity. This is what constituted the mind of Christ, the
surrender of the will and dependence on the Father for the strength to resist the
two avenues of temptation which Satan uses; inherited sinful tendencies from
within, and the temptations of Satan from without. Thus it must be with us. This
is true Righteousness by Faith.
The last part of this paragraph declares that we may be partakers of divinity
and live a life of obedience just as He did. The first part is positive proof that it
can be done in fallen sinful nature, with all of its inherited weaknesses of the flesh
which we receive as a result of the great law of heredity. He did it to show us how
we can do it. He gave us an example to follow.
2
After Sr. White had already presented her position on the subject, brethren
Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, gave their messages in 1888 and onward. Not only
did their views agree with hers, she had the highest opinion of their messages.
And not only were these three in harmony with her, but the General Conference
made it clear that the church also took the position of these four.
The Established Faith of the Body, 1889, page 98
... He came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3); was "made of the
seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3); was "made of a woman, made
under the law" (Gal. 4:4); he "took not on him the nature of angels, but he
took on him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16); in fact, "in all things it
behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful
and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for
the sins of the people. For in that he suffered being tempted, he is able to
succor them that are tempted." Therefore, according to the word of truth,
Jesus possessed the sinful flesh with all of its sinful and inherited
tendencies to evil from Judah down. Therefore he can be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities, as he was tempted even as we. Heb. 4:15.
And Christ has power to help. He suffered being tempted, but it was always
the suffering of travail; it brought forth fruit of righteousness. Men often suffer
through temptation, the suffering of sin. Christ's suffering was the travail of
righteousness. With sinful tendencies in his flesh, he never sinned, but
"condemned sin (overthrew sin) in the flesh," a triumphant conqueror,
first over sinful flesh, second over the results of sin, death. Rom. 8:3, 4.
This is our Redeemer. He knows how to help; he is "mighty to save." ST, Sept.
16, 1889
ST, Aug. 12, 1889 The Established Faith of the Body page 98
One of the greatest comforts and aids to the Christian who is warring
against foes without, and crushing out tendencies within, is to know that he
has a high priest who, though "higher than the heavens," can be touched with
the feeling of his infirmities; who was in all points tempted as his followers are
tempted, yet he was without sin... If he had not been tempted even as we,
we would not have confidence in his help, for we would reason that he
had never met our temptations in our frailty, that he had never resisted
the inherited passions and weaknesses of generations; therefore he could
not know how to help us.
The Established Faith of the Body page 99
The word "passion" is a word of many meanings. Its original and literal
meaning is "suffering." It is used in this sense in the expression so often seen,
"our Lord's passion." It is used as synonymous with emotion. Love, hate, fear,
joy, grief are called passions. It is probably more often used to denote
vehement desire in a bad direction, such as hatred, rage, lust of
concupiscence, etc. But in all these cases it is the product of the mind and
flesh together. The flesh may possess inherited tendencies to sin, but God
does not count them sin, nor will they ever issue in sin, if there is not within
the mind something which is in harmony with the inherent tendencies of the
3
flesh. But the soul renewed by divine grace, holding continual connection
with God by living faith, will abhor those tendencies. The infirmities of
"sinful flesh" are there, which make temptations real, but the soul is high
above them, and overcomes them through grace. Sinful men have these
inherited tendencies and weaknesses, and their heart, mind, or soul is in
harmony with their flesh, hence they possess passions in the worst sense.
When the flesh and soul agree, there is passion. When the soul abhors the
tendencies of the flesh, and through grace rises above them, there is no
passion. The tendencies of the flesh alone are but infirmities. Christ
possessed like infirmities to man, he did not possess like passions. ST
Sept. 23, 1889.

The Reform Movement also has a similar view.


44. NATURE OF CHRIST:
RESOLVED that the following statement be adopted: We believe that the
Divine nature of the Son of God was blended with the fallen human nature of
the sons of Adam after the fall and after 4000 years of degeneracy
according to the great law of heredity. This we believe is the mystery of the
incarnation. DA 23:1. While He (Christ) took our fallen nature, we believe in
harmony with what is written that there was in Him no evil propensity to sin,
but that he was tempted from without, not from within (John 14:30; James
1:14.), in all points as we are, yet without sin. He could have yielded to
temptation, but He did not, thus becoming both our Saviour and Advocate. We
may overcome through Him even as he overcame. Christ was, is, and always
will be, God. 1 John 5:20; Heb. 13:8; 2:13-18; 7:16, 26, 27; Rom 1:13; 8:3;
Heb. 2:9; 1SM 253; 5T 699. This subject should not be discussed further as it
is the "mystery of all mysteries" (6BC 1082) and all our teaching should be
based on a "thus saith the Lord," and not on individual opinions.
Unfortunately, many of the ministers of the Reform have ignored the last part
and accepted a new theology and deny the official position of the church, both at
the time of Sr White (1889) and today (1987). They especially go contrary to the
last and most important part of the 1987 resolution which states that all our
beliefs are to be based on a thus saith the Lord and not on individual opinions.
These ministers and Bible workers state verbally, and in writing, that Christ
was not born according to the laws of heredity for He was not subject to them,
and therefore was born with a human nature which was different from ours. They
teach that the hereditary sinful tendencies, which are ours by inheritance, were
somehow filtered out, or stripped away from, the DNA* of Christ, preventing Him
from having to face the temptations of the flesh as we do. Thus He was not made
like unto His brethren, nor was He tempted in all things like as we are. They base
this theological doctrine on texts, taken out of context, from the Baker letter. But
a text out of context is a pretext. And anytime you have a pretext you have a lie,
which contradicts the truth. *(DNA- Deoxyribonucleic acid is a blueprint which
contains the instructions for the development and functioning of all living
organisms, animal or plant. These DNA blueprints are contained in the genes in

4
strands known as chromosones. Chromosones are copied and divided making it
possible for a cell to divide. The female egg contains only half of the chromosones
necessary for the cell to divide. The other half of the chromosones needed are
found in the male sperm. Physical, mental, and moral, strengths and weaknesses
are thus transferred from parents to children.)
Contradiction?
Some think that the letter to Kellogg seems to be in contradiction with the
letter sent to Baker. They propose that in the letter to Baker, Sister White says
that Christ had no hereditary sinful tendencies because of this statement: “He
could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him
an evil propensity.” Then, they say that in her letter to Kellogg, she says exactly
the opposite: "Coming as He did, as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which
man is heir..." Is she contradicting herself? Or is their understanding of what she
is saying distorted by preconceived ideas? What exactly is she saying in these
quotes? Let’s read them carefully and then analyze them.

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
And when the fullness of time was come, He stepped down from His
throne of highest command, laid aside His royal robe and kingly crown,
clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to this earth to exemplify
what humanity must do and be in order to overcome the enemy and to
sit with the Father upon His throne. Coming, as He did, as a man, with
all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, He made it possible for
Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan, to meet
and be subjected to, the rebel who had been expelled from heaven,
working in every conceivable manner to destroy his faith. Letter K-
303, 1903
In actuality, there is no contradiction at all between these two statements, or
any other statements either of the Spirit of Prophecy or Scripture. In the Baker
letter she is trying to establish that, though He was tempted in the same sinful
flesh (nature) in which we are tempted, and that Christ could have sinned, yet He
never sinned. He had to make the same choices that we do in the same nature we
have. Because of the fact that she is contrasting the issue of choice (character),
not nature (flesh), the term “no sinful tendencies” can only be applied to
5
cultivated sinful tendencies (propensities).
In the Baker Letter, she makes it clear that all descendents of Adam received
by heredity the propensities, or tendencies, of disobedience. “Because of sin
his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. He (Christ)
took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human
nature is tempted.” 5BC 1128.4. This hereditary weakness to fall into sin has
been received by every child of Adam according to the laws of heredity. “Like
every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law
of heredity.” DA 48. So according to inspiration, did Christ receive by heredity
propensities of disobedience? According to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy He did.
Acts 2:25, 30 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord
always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be
moved: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with
an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh;
What does it mean “of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh?” It means to
be of his posterity. He clarifies it even clearer when he says that He was made of
the same seed of David’s flesh. The word seed comes from the word spermatose,
or genetics. And what kind of genetics de did David have?
Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me.
Here David is clear that he received a sinful nature from his mother. Paul is just
as clear that Christ received the same sinful nature that only David and his
descendants could pass on to Him. (Rom 1:3)
Are we tempted by our inherited propensities of disobedience? Yes. Do they pull
at us and provoke us to fall into sin? Yes. Peter clarifies this.
1 Peter 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims,
abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
2 Peter 2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they
allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that
were clean escaped from them who live in error.
Sr. White agrees with Peter.
"Many have to battle against strong hereditary tendencies to evil.
Unnatural cravings, sensual impulses, were their inheritance from birth.
These must be carefully guarded against. Within and without, good and evil
are striving for the mastery." The Ministry of Healing, p. 173:3
Do the temptations of Satan war against the soul and tempt us to sin? Yes. Do
our inherent propensities or tendencies of disobedience, war against us and tempt
us to sin? According to inspiration, yes. Therefore, according to the Bible and the
Spirit of Prophecy, Jesus not only received our inherited sinful nature, but was
also tempted by it just as you and I are. It is very important to note that it is the
flesh that tempts the mind, not the mind that tempts the flesh. The battle is in the
mind. And even though the flesh can tempt and allure the mind, it can’t control it.
6
The mind, however, can control the flesh. Therefore, though Christ took upon
Himself our sinful nature, with all the sinful tendencies to which man is heir, and
was tempted in all things as human nature (the soul) is tempted, He was not a
sinner, because He kept His mind pure by not responding to the temptations.
"The prince of this world cometh," saith Jesus, "and hath nothing in Me."
There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan's sophistry. He did not
consent to sin. Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So it may
be with us. CD 152.4
Sinlessness in sinful flesh; this is the mystery of Godliness that Jesus had to
demonstrate to us and to the universe. We too need to make this same
demonstration before the close of probation.
Some would have us believe that when Jesus said Satan had nothing in Him, it
meant that He had sinless flesh, a flesh void of hereditary sinful tendencies. Is
this what it is saying here? If this is what it is saying, then it says that we too can
have sinless flesh, void of hereditary sinful tendencies. She says clearly that “So it
may be with us.” This is the doctrine of the Holy Flesh movement. She did not
accept this doctrine and neither should we.
He (Christ) took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all
points as human nature is tempted. 5BC 1128.4
How is human nature tempted? Sr White gives a clear example of being tempted
from within.
Many have to battle against strong hereditary tendencies to evil.
Unnatural cravings, sensual impulses, were their inheritance from birth.
These must be carefully guarded against. Within and without, good and evil
are striving for the mastery. The Ministry of Healing, p. 173:3
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able
to succor them that are tempted.
In the letter to Kellogg she is trying to establish the fact that Jesus was not
immaculately conceived, thus He had hereditary sinful tendencies. It is extremely
important to keep her terms within their context or we can loose our spiritual
compass. How easy it is to misunderstand inspiration when we allow ourselves to
accept mans traditions and doctrines without proving them with scripture. Let’s
examine these two quotes closely, point by point.
1.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, (Meaning he started out with a clean slate or record. Not
guilty of sin) without a taint of sin upon him (no cultivated or inherited
sinful tendencies, susceptibilities, or weaknesses); he was in the image of
God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing (a choice).
Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of
disobedience. (These inherited sinful tendencies are called a sinful nature.
7
Was Jesus one of Adams posterity? And did He take upon Himself this sinful
nature? The Bible and SOP say yes.)
2.But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God (a clarification that
His divinity was not lost).
3.He took upon Himself, (sinful) human nature and was tempted in all
points as human nature is tempted. (While the human mind is tempted by
external influences, it is being tempted also by the influence of the sinful
tendencies, susceptibilities, and weaknesses, inherited propensities from
Adam and his descendents. It was thus that Christ Himself was tempted in
the same way as we are. If He had not accepted these inherent propensities of
disobedience, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of
God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was "in all points tempted
like as we are." Heb. 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are
subject.)
4.He could have sinned (by choice); He could have fallen (by choice), but
(but in contrast with Adam) not for one moment was there in Him an evil
propensity. (Just previously she stated that the posterity of Adam was born
with inherited propensities of disobedience. And since Jesus is not only
posterity of fallen Adam, but of fallen Abraham and of fallen David He was
born with the inherent propensities of disobedience that they passed on to
their offspring. (Psalms 51:5) Yet, she says that though He was a descendent
of fallen man, according to the laws of heredity, never was a sin committed in
thought or act which would have developed in Him a cultivated evil
tendency/propensity. Thus He maintained the sinlessness [or purity] of His
human nature which was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted.
In this way He received a defiled, polluted nature while at the same time
maintaining a pure, undefiled mind, free of any evil propensity)
5.He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was
assailed with temptations in Eden. (Some take this part out of context and
try to say that Christ was tempted in the same sinless nature as Adam had
before the fall. Inspiration says that He was tempted as Adam was tempted
with the exception that His nature was a sinful nature; He took upon
Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. He
took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. In this sinful human
nature, with all its hereditary tendencies, He endured all the temptations
wherewith man is beset. Thus, it was His life which was sinless, not his
nature.)
In the Baker Letter Sr. White is trying to correct the understanding of a man
who was apparently imbibing in the doctrine of Adoptionism. This doctrine
states that Christ was altogether one as ourselves, not being divine, until such
a time as God saw fit to adopt Him into the Godhead. It states or assumes that
He not only was born of the seed of David, with hereditary sinful tendencies,
but could have, and most likely did sin, which would have resulted in Him
having cultivated sinful tendencies. Thus it teaches that He could have, and
most likely did, fall into sin prior to this adoption.
8
The Kellogg letter addresses the opposite but no less dangerous error that
Christ was immaculately conceived, not receiving the inherent propensities of
disobedience of our sinful nature. This was the understanding of the Holy Flesh
movement in particular.
1. And when the fullness of time was come, He stepped down from
His throne of highest command, laid aside His royal robe and
kingly crown, clothed His divinity with humanity, (In humbling
Himself to take on humanity, though He was still God, He deprived
Himself of the privileges of His divinity, His omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnipresence. He had to depend on His heavenly
Father and earthly parents just as each of us must do.)
2. and came to this earth to exemplify what humanity must do and
be in order to overcome the enemy and to sit with the Father
upon His throne. (He came to show us how we must overcome the
pull or allurement of sin, whether the influence is from without or
from the inherent propensities of disobedience of a sinful nature
which is from within.)
3. Coming, as He did, as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which
man is heir, (He came with the same fallen sinful nature, with all it’s
hereditary sinful tendencies which we are born with, with the same
pull and urges that our sinful nature exerts over us. His humanity was
complete, 100%. He was the ladder that reached from heaven all the
way down to us in our inherited condition.)
4. He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies
inspired by Satan, to meet and be subjected to, the rebel who had
been expelled from heaven, working in every conceivable manner
to destroy his faith. (By subjecting Himself to, and having to
continually contend with, the pull of these hereditary evil tendencies,
He felt the full power of these temptations on our sinful nature, be it
from without or from within.
In the Kellogg Letter, she is dealing with one of the few who believed that Christ
had been immaculately conceived and had no inherited tendencies to sin, unlike
us who are born with a sinful nature. The Holy Flesh Movement also accepted this
doctrine. This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, though it seemed to have
disappeared, was merely dormant. Sr. White warned us that it would be back
again just before the close of probation to shake and sift the church.
And since the implications of this quote and another quote, also taken out of
context from the Baker letter, are intimately related, we will analyze them
together.
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; for, said the angel, "Behold, thou
9
shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name
JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall
reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no
end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God."
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 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. 5BC 1128
What is she saying here?
1. 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. (What is to be avoided?
Presenting that which has been revealed on the humanity of Christ? No. It is
the questions which are liable to be misunderstood. And why could these
questions be misunderstood? Because there is no thus saith the Lord to
answer them. The other thing to guard against is an assertion which can be
taken to mean something other than that which it means. Sr. White was
very careful to follow dictionary definitions to avoid confusion over what she
was saying. We should do the same.)
2. His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, ‘Behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name
JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom
there shall be no end.’ Then said Mary unto the angel, ‘How shall this
be, seeing I know not a man?’ And the angel answered and said unto
her, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ (The only part of this
10
quote that seems to get misinterpreted is the term “that holy thing.” It is
implied by some that, due to the next part, that says that “these words can
only be applied to Christ,” shows that Christ received no inherited sinful
tendencies but that He was immaculately conceived, with no sinful flesh to
subdue.
“The Lord would have every one holy, even as he is holy.” RH, October
17, 1899, par. 1.
In light of the fact that we are admonished to be holy, even as He is holy, rules
out “that holy thing” from the context that she is referring to an absence of
hereditary tendencies, as some would have us believe. If not, then what she is
saying is that we are all to be immaculately conceived, with no sinful flesh to keep
under subjection. Otherwise we could never reach that same state of holiness that
he reached until we are given our sanctified bodies at the resurrection. This would
mean that Paul was confused theologically.
Nowhere do we read that we are to be called “the Son of God” (upper case).”
This term can only be applied to Christ. But we are to be “sons of God” (lower
case). Christ was that holy thing not only because He was God, but, because He
never sinned. He never conceded to allow his thoughts to dwell on the urging of
the lusts of the flesh, as we will see later. And after all, what is it that makes us
holy but living a holy life? Holy men of God were only holy because of their
obedience; not because they had sinless natures, and received no hereditary
sinful tendencies. They were holy even though they had sinful flesh, with
hereditary sinful tendencies, but kept that flesh under subjection to their higher
powers, the power of reason.
Christ was that holy thing throughout His whole life because He never sinned.
The other reason why He is that holy thing is because He was God. God is holy.
Thus, we see that sinful flesh does not sin in the womb, as some would have us
believe. This is a concept which Augustine, apostate Protestants, the Holy Flesh
Movement, and many of our own ministers have failed to comprehend; thus the
need to adopt such doctrines as Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception. And
even though our ministers don’t like to have these titles applied to their doctrines,
yet their contents are the same.
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 Christ could be tempted in all points like
as we are, and yet be without sin.
The issue she is addressing here is whether a taint of, or inclination to,
corruption rested on Christ. Let me ask some simple questions. Were Cain, Able,
Abraham, and David, born with a sinful nature? Yes, sr. White says that “Because
of sin his (Adam’s) posterity was born with inherent propensities of
disobedience.” These inherent propensities of disobedience are what is referred to
as a sinful nature. Is a sinful nature a corrupt nature? or an undefiled nature? It
11
is a corrupt nature. When Adam sinned, not only did his character become
corrupt, but his DNA became corrupt, leaving him with a weakened, corrupt
nature. Does a sinful nature have hereditary inclinations to sin? Yes, it is those
hereditary inclinations that makes the nature a sinful nature, isn’t it?
Now some say that because of this genetic process everyone but Christ was
born sinners, because they were born with a sinful nature, full of hereditary sinful
tendencies. But didn’t sr. White say that Christ was born with a sinful nature?
How many ways does she have to say it for us to understand it?
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
As one of us He was to give an example of obedience. For this He
took upon Himself our nature, and passed through our experiences. DA
24.2
Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of
the great law of heredity. DA 48
He took upon Him our sinful nature. — BE 4/05/97
Coming, as He did, as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which
man is heir,… Letter K-303, 1903
Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon himself fallen, suffering
human nature, degraded and defiled by sin…. YI, December 20, 1900
Haven’t we already concluded that a sinful nature is a corrupt nature with
sinful tendencies? Yes. Then why would it seem that she is contradicting herself
by saying that He had a sinful nature and yet say that He didn’t have a taint of, or
tendency to, corruption?
To begin with, she never says that man is a sinner because he is born with a
sinful nature. Therefore she could say that He had a fallen, sinful nature,
degraded and defiled by sin, without making Him a sinner. Those who claim that
man is a sinner because he is born with a sinful nature, are confused individuals.
Sinful flesh does not sin in the womb, as some would have us believe (AH 127)(HC
114). This is a concept which Augustine, apostate Protestants, the Holy Flesh
Movement, and many of our own ministers have failed to comprehend; thus they
have felt the need to adopt such doctrines as Original Sin and the Immaculate
Conception to protect Christ from being a sinner. Even though sinful flesh tempts
the mind, the only sin which brings guilt is conceived in the mind (Jas 1:15).
Wouldn’t it be better to accept the word of God as found in the written word and
in the laws of nature?
Further more, she is not referring to His fallen human nature when she says
that there was no taint of, or inclination to, corruption which rested upon Christ,
or that He in any way yielded to corruption. She is referring to his character, His
cultivated nature. She makes it clear that He never yielded His mind to corruption
but lived a holy life. He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh. Thus, she never needed
to adopt the doctrines of Original Sin or the Immaculate Conception to protect
Him from being a sinner. It is of utmost importance that we keep what she says in
its context. A text out of context is a pretext, and a pretext is a lie. The 144,000
will be found without guile in their mouths. They will speak the truth.
12
The Law of Heredity:
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; for, said the angel, "Behold, thou
shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name
JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall
reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no
end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God."
“Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of
Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion…” An assertion is a claim
or allegation which is not necessarily based on facts. It doesn’t necessarily mean it
is false but if it isn’t false there probably are supporting evidences to prove it to be
true. If an assertion has facts to back it up we must face reality. It is the purpose
of this study to separate the two. This is what we are going to look at as we
analyze these two letters, which some say contradict each other. I propose that
these two inspired letters are in perfect harmony with each other, and that the
book of nature is the supporting evidence. I would also suggest that if anyone
believes that there is a contradiction between these two letters that this person
doesn’t understand the terminology, the grammar, or both, that are used.
The statement that His birth was a miracle of God is backed up by the book of
nature. According to the laws of nature it is impossible for a woman to get
pregnant without a sperm cell. That would be a miracle. Notice that the
conception was miraculous, not immaculate.
The next part, which many times gets perverted and twisted, is ‘that holy
thing’. Some would have us to believe that she is trying to tell us here that that
Holy Thing, which never sinned, was holy because His human nature was
different from ours. They claim, as did the Holy Flesh Movement, that He didn’t
receive by heredity the natural tendencies, or weaknesses to sin which every other
child of Adam receives. They would have us to believe that Christ violated the laws
of heredity at His conception; that a filter of some kind kept the inherited
weaknesses and tendencies of our sinful fallen nature, which are found in the
chromosomes of every egg and every sperm, and which are passed down from
generation to generation, even to that Holy Thing. They would have us believe that
this unnatural stripping away of the nucleic acid strains of Mary’s genetic code
which carried the weaknesses of the flesh, which His ancestors had so faithfully
passed down to her, is somehow the great mystery left unexplained. Is this the
truth, or a presumptuous assertion without evidence? One look at the Holy Flesh
13
doctrine, which Sr. White, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and Haskell worked so hard
to oppose, and it is plain to see that this is the very belief which is trying to raise
its ugly head again. But Ellen White wrote to Haskell that these erroneous
theories, methods and experience of the Holy Flesh Movement would again be
repeated within Adventism. We can see this even in the Reform Movement.
It was Augustine who first introduced this doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception to Christianity. He said that after Mary was born God cleansed her of
the inherent propensities of disobedience, the inherited sinful tendencies, which
gave her a sinless nature so that she wouldn’t pass on a sinful nature to the child
Jesus. Is this based on any evidences or is it a presumptuous assertion? Next we
will address the two mysteries she refers to relating to the nature of Christ.
Because of sin his (Adam’s) posterity was born with inherent propensities
of disobedience… He (Christ) took upon Himself human nature, and was
tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. 5BC 1128.4
Christ declared, no single principle of human nature will I violate. —
Ellen White, Ms. 65, 1899
Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the
great law of heredity. — DA, p. 49
Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon himself fallen, suffering
human nature, degraded and defiled by sin…. He endured all the
temptations wherewith man is beset. YI, December 20, 1900
Coming, as He did, as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which man is
heir… Letter K-303-1903
Cristo declaró: "No violaré ninguno de los principios de la naturaleza
humana." - Ellen White, Ms. 65, 1899
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 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. 5BC 1128
When something is corrupted it has been altered from its original state. When
Adam sinned, his spiritual nature (his character, or mind) became corrupted,
which, according to the laws of nature, caused his physical nature (his flesh, or
DNA) to become corrupted (weakened) as well. Thus his offspring, because of the
laws of heredity, received this sinful flesh as well.
Because of sin his (Adams) posterity was born with inherent propensities
of disobedience… 5BC 1128.4
All humanity, because of the laws of heredity, received this weakened DNA,
14
which is the sinful nature.
Many claim that because we have received these propensities of disobedience
according to the great law of heredity that we are sinners at birth, as if we had
committed sin already. But Sr. White states clearly that:
The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.” The Adventist
Home, 127.
It is only as we act contrary to the will of God that we commit sin. To have
committed sin means we have sinned, which is the past tense to the verb sin. As a
verb sin can only be applied to the cultivated nature, the character or the mind;
not the flesh. Sr. white makes this clear. As a noun sin can be applied to the flesh
or human nature ( see Ps. 51:5, Rom. 8:3).

SIN
What is it?

SIN SIN
without as a verb with with as a noun without
in the mind in the flesh

Sinlessness sinfulness sinful sinless

Sinlessness is the state of living free of sin. (Perfection of character/a sinless mind, the
mind of Christ.)
Sinless means to be free of sin. (Sinless flesh/Adams flesh prior to the fall. Sinless
mind/ the mind of Christ. Sinlessness.)
Sinless flesh means that the flesh has not been contaminated by sin. If you have sinless
flesh, your mind has to be in a state of sinlessness.

SIN SIN
Without as a verb with with as a noun without
mind flesh
Sinlessness sinfulness sinful sinless
Sinfulness is the state of living in sin. (The carnal mind/ having committed sin.)
Sinful means to be full of sin or affected by sin, either by heredity or by choice. (sinful
flesh, or sinful act)
As Adam found out, as soon as the mind chooses to sin (sinfulness), not only does the
mind change, the flesh too becomes weakened by that sin (sinful flesh). We know from
inspiration that sin weakens the genetic code, which in turn is passed on to our
descendents. Therefore, if you choose to sin, not only does your character take on the
attribute of sinfulness, but your flesh also becomes sinful. If you have sinfulness of
character, you have to have sinful flesh.
If you are in a state sinlessness, you can have either sinless flesh, like Adam had
before the fall, or sinful flesh, as in the case of those who receive the latter rain.

SIN SIN
Without as a verb with with as a noun without
mind flesh
15
Sinlessness sinfulness sinful sinless

Thus you can have sinful flesh, laden with the inherited tendencies to sin, and still
have the same sinlessness in our humanity that Adam had before the fall, and the same
sinlessness which Christ had in His humanity. Sinlessness in sinful flesh; this was the
glad tidings of the 1888 message.

Some would have us to believe that when she says never to imply “that a taint
of, or inclination to, corruption,” rested on him, she is referring to His physical
nature, the DNA. According to them, supposedly He had mysteriously been
prevented from receiving any weakening, or corruption, that is caused by the
sinful choices of His ancestors. If it was His DNA that was prevented from
receiving corruption, then out of necessity of logic we must conclude that since a
genetic weakness to indulge the appetite is a corruption of the nature which Adam
had before the fall, Christ couldn’t have been tempted on appetite as we are. He
couldn’t have been tempted, as we are tempted, to loose his temper when
persecuted, if he had no corrupt sinful flesh like we receive according to the laws
of heredity. In fact, if there were no sinful tendencies passed to Him from David,
Salomon, or even Mary, how could he have been tempted like as we are at all,
since we have to battle temptation with these inherited sinful tendencies in our
flesh? He couldn’t have.
They also would have us to believe that she is trying to tell us here that that
Holy Thing, which never sinned, was holy because His nature was different from
ours. They claim that He didn’t receive by heredity the natural tendencies, or
weaknesses, to sin. They would have us to believe that the laws of heredity were
broken in the conception of Jesus; that a filter of some kind kept the weaknesses
of our sinful tendencies, which are found in the chromosomes of every egg and
every sperm, and which are passed down from generation to generation, from
passing on to that Holy Thing. They would have us believe that this unnatural
stripping away of the nucleic acid strains of Mary’s genetic code, which carried the
weaknesses of the flesh, which His ancestors had so faithfully passed down to
her, is somehow the great mystery left unexplained. Is this the truth or a
presumptuous assertion? As we look at the Holy Flesh doctrine again, which Sr.
White, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and Haskell worked so hard to oppose, and it is
plain to see that this is the very belief which is trying to raise its ugly head again.
Ellen White wrote to Haskell that these erroneous theories, methods and
experience of the Holy Flesh Movement would again be repeated within Adventism
just prior to the close of probation.
What does inspiration say? It says that Christ refused to violate even one
principle of human nature, and that just as every one of us accept the genetic
weaknesses and hereditary tendencies to evil from our parents, He also took our
fallen, sinful nature, degraded and defiled by sin. Does this make Him a sinner at
birth? Those who accepted the messages of 1888 didn’t think so. However Dr.
Kellogg and the Holy Flesh movement did. Who should we follow? I choose
inspiration as my guide.

16
The things you have described as taking place in Indiana, the Lord has
shown me would take place just before the close of probation. . . . . 2SM
36
Last January the Lord showed me that erroneous theories and
methods would be brought into our camp meetings, and that the history of
the past would be repeated. . . . .
The third angel's message is to be given in straight lines. It is to be
kept free from every thread of the cheap, miserable inventions of men's
theories, prepared by the father of lies, and disguised as was the brilliant
serpent used by Satan as a medium of deceiving our first parents. 2SM 37
Has this erroneous theory come back into our camp meetings? It has, and has
even been presented at the General Conference in Session (2007) as if it were the
truth. However, this erroneous theory that Christ was born stripped of the
hereditary sinful tendencies of His ancestors, so that He didn’t have to battle
against the flesh as we do, contradicts every other statement of hers concerning
His nature like these.
“Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of
the great law of heredity.” DA 48
Because of sin his (Adam) posterity was born with inherent propensities
of disobedience… He (Christ) took upon Himself human nature, and was
tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. 5BC 1128.4
Coming, as He did, as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which
man is heir… Letter K-303, 1903
Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart,
and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the
humanity, which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his temptations
on man's account. 7BC 930.2
How is it that intelligent humans can so easily take a position contrary to a
truth so plainly stated? It is because preconceived ideas on the nature of sin give
these same words different meanings as we will see.
“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.”
What was the mystery which has been left unexplained? The mystery is how He
could live a sinless life in sinful flesh. She couldn’t have made it clearer. Some felt
that it would be impossible for Him to confront the temptations which we have to
face, with the same hereditary tendencies to evil which we are born with, and yet
not fall into sin. So they try to explain how that He was able to overcome sin
because He had no hereditary sinful tendencies. This was Satan’s claim, that
humanity, in sinful flesh, could not obey the law of God. Today many echo these
same sentiments. But what does she say?
“If we accept that He took on Himself our fallen sinful nature, and did
so without falling into sin, then we have this hope that we too can come to
the point that, even in this fallen sinful nature, we too can reach the
same level of perfection and holiness that He reached.” HP 146.5.
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did
17
not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and
weaknesses by which man is encompassed. . . . 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." FLB 49.
Original Sin:
There is no mystery as to whether or not His genes were stripped of the
hereditary tendencies to sin. She states clearly that there was no stripping of His
genes. Because of the fact that He took man’s nature in its fallen condition, He
was subject to THE SAME infirmities and weaknesses by which man is
encompassed. How dare I add the word ‘same’ in front of infirmities and
weaknesses, you might say. Easy; He was touched with the feelings of OUR
infirmities, and was in ALL points tempted like as we are. He felt the clamor of the
sinful nature. Because of sin his (Adams) posterity was born with inherent
propensities of disobedience. Jesus was one of Adams posterity and felt those
inherent propensities of disobedience.
Acts 2:29-30 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with
us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the
flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh;
In Ps 51:5 David speaks of his flesh.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me.
He was born in sinful flesh, with all the weaknesses which the inherited
propensities of sin could pass on to him according to the laws of heredity. The
Bible, SOP, and our pioneers, were all in agreement that Christ received the same
flesh we receive, according to the same laws of heredity. See The Established
Faith of the Body 1889 (SDA) and resolution 44 of 1987 (SDARM).
So why would theologians today try to convince us to the contrary? It is
because they believe that if He were to receive these inherited propensities of
disobedience, which every other child of Adam is born with, that somehow this
would make Him a sinner. This is the doctrine of Original Sin! So why didn’t any
inspired writers try to protect Him in this way?
It is because their understanding of the nature of sin and corruption were in
harmony with the Bible and SOP. Sr. White was not confused on this issue. She
had no problems in writing the Baker letter, the Kellogg letter, and many other
quotes which these people can’t seem to harmonize because they don’t use the
same definition of sin that she does. Nowhere do we find any of the writers of her
day stating that they believed that we are born sinners because we are born with
such an heredity, or that Christ had to have His DNA stripped of inherited sinful
tendencies in order to protect Him from being corrupted by sin. Original sin was
not a part of their beliefs. So how is it that this has become a part of the belief of
so many in the church today? It is because we have forgotten to be as the
18
Bereans; to never take what is preached as truth until we have studied it for
ourselves and confirmed it with the word of God.
Since truth lies close to the track of presumption, she realized that the truth of
His sinful nature could lead those who didn’t understand the subject of the
nature of sin, to easily get confused and believe that Christ probably did sin, since
He had the same sinful nature, with all of the tendencies to evil we have to fight
against and overcome, she wrote the Baker letter to clarify and controvert these
errors. The theory of Adoptionism which makes that very assumption was
prevalent back then. It is very easy to fall into sin since the inherited
susceptibilities we are born with tempt us to fall. But this just means that we are
susceptible to the pull of these tendencies. We don’t have to fall.
I had freedom and power in presenting Jesus, who took upon himself the
infirmities and bore the griefs and sorrows of humanity, and conquered in
our behalf. He was made like unto his brethren, with the same
susceptibilities, mental and physical. He was tempted in all points like as we
are, yet without sin; and he knows how to succor those who are tempted.
Are you harassed and perplexed? So was Jesus. RH, February 10, 1885 par.
7
What are these infirmities which she is referring to? Is she implying that He got
sick and thus He could conquer our diseases? Some would have us believe this
but in fact she is referring to nothing other than our inherited sinful tendencies/
or susceptibilities. Thus He was able to be tempted in all points like as we are.
Matt 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the
prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
If these infirmities and sicknesses are diseases, as we are lead to believe by
some, then Sr. White was in error when she says that He was never sick a day in
His life. Fortunately this is not the case. She is in fact referring to the sinful
tendencies which we accept when we are conceived.
Paul also places infirmities in the context of temptations of the flesh.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in
the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind;
and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
We can easily understand the desires of the mind since the mind can articulate
thoughts. But can our flesh really desire something? Our flesh can’t think! So
what is Paul trying to say here? He is referring to none other than the feelings of
our infirmities, the temptations of the flesh. But these desires and lusts of our
flesh are not sin.
“The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.” The Adventist
Home, 127.
It is only as we fulfill these desires that we become sinners.
Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulful the
lust of the flesh.
19
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;
but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
What happens when we fall to the temptations of the flesh? We reap
corruption. Our minds become corrupt and the weaknesses of the flesh become
stronger. We then pass on these same tendencies which we were born with, only
stronger. Notice the trend in the descendents of David. What kind of flesh did
David have?
Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me.
David was born with a flesh laden with sinful tendencies and the lusts of the
flesh. How about the flesh of Christ?
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh;
Did Paul believe that Christ accepted the laws of heredity? It says here that he
did. When we say “made of the seed,” we are referring to the genetic connection.
David, unlike Christ, had no choice whether or not to accept the laws of heredity.
Christ on the other hand had a choice and exercised that choice.
Christ declared, no single principle of human nature will I violate. —
Ellen White, Ms. 65, 1899
Every successive descendent of David added more weaknesses to that flesh
which Christ received.
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. 5BC 1128.4
"Many have to battle against strong hereditary tendencies to evil.
Unnatural cravings, sensual impulses, were their inheritance from birth.
These must be carefully guarded against. Within and without, good and
evil are striving for the mastery." The Ministry of Healing, p. 173:3
Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart,
and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the
humanity, which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his temptations
on man's account. 7BC 930.2
What is the good and evil which are striving from within and from without?
They are the temptations from within and from without.
Temptations
The good from within is that measure of faith, which we all receive at birth,
which Christ can appeal to from without. The good from without is the influence
of the Trinity through the Holy Spirit. As He knocks at the hearts door from
without, we can choose to develop that faith and let Him in through the presence
of the Holy Spirit. In this way, we strengthen our genetic code. But we can choose
to ignore Him and dwell on, and even act upon, the temptation. This of course
continues to weaken the genetic code even more.
20
The evil from within is the hereditary tendencies of disobedience which we
receive because of the laws of heredity. Some of these may be stronger than
others, but they are all our inheritance from birth. The evil from without are the
environmental influences, including Satan placing thoughts in our minds. These
temptations to sin from within and from without, we may choose to ignore, which
strengthens our DNA. Or we can give them a place in our heart, which weakens
our DNA. This is what Paul refers to as making provision for the lusts, whether
they be of the flesh or of the eye; whether they come from within or from without.
The idea, which is being taught by many of our ministers, that the only way to
be tempted from within is to develop sinful thoughts only as a result of the
concupiscence of our perverted minds, is not backed up by inspiration. Can we,
out of the concupiscence of our perverted hearts develop sinful thoughts which
tempt us? Of course we can. As we dwell on sin it develops more desires to sin.
This weakens the genetic code so that the temptation to cultivate sinful thoughts
becomes stronger. But when we weaken the genetic code it makes the flesh of our
offspring clamor harder against their minds, making it more difficult for them to
be obedient.
Did Jesus develop a weaker genetic code than that which He was born with?
No. And why not? Because Jesus always depended on the father to keep His mind
pure. The mind of Christ never dwelt on a single sinful thought. Could Satan
place sinful thoughts in His mind as he can ours? Of course. If not, He was not
tempted like as we are. Could the desires of the flesh, the feelings of our
infirmities with which He was born, produce tempting thoughts in His mind as it
does in ours? Of course it did or He could not have been tempted in all points like
as we are. But as those thoughts came to His mind, He refused to dwell on them
and thus crucified the flesh. This is to be our experience too. We may not be able
to control the chemicals in our bodies which can produce thoughts in our minds,
whether they be good thoughts or bad thoughts, any more than we can control
whether Satan can place thoughts in our minds. But we can control what
happens to these thoughts which are produced by temptations, whether from
within or from without. We can dwell on them or eliminate them.
Some will try to convince you that these hereditary sinful tendencies of the
flesh cannot be a temptation to us which must be overcome. However Sr. White
has a totally different view of the subject.
"Many have to battle against strong hereditary tendencies to evil.
Unnatural cravings, sensual impulses, were their inheritance from birth.
These must be carefully guarded against. Within and without, good and evil
are striving for the mastery." The Ministry of Healing, p. 173:3
Is this a temptation which has to be overcome? Of course it is.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet
without sin.
Paul and Sr. White were in agreement on this subject. They understood that
Christ took those same infirmities of the flesh (hereditary sinful tendencies) which
we receive and felt the same pull of the fallen nature which we feel. The real
21
mystery is how He did so without sinning. This she says is a mystery.
“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.”
As we have read, Jesus took upon Himself the same flesh as did the posterity of
Adam; the genetics of the seed of Abraham and David and their descendants. If we
were to do a DNA test on Jesus and Adam, would we find a match? Yes. If we were
to do the same test on Abraham, would we get a match? Yes again. If we did the
test on David, would we get a match? Yes, of course. If not, the Bible and SOP
would be a lie.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on
him the seed of Abraham.
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh;
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 earthly ancestors. DA 48
As you read the sad account of each one of David’s descendents you can see
the degeneration of the flesh which was passed down to Mary. Nothing about the
physical nature, which is visible to the eye, is mentioned. Nothing about the
weaknesses of arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, or any other physical infirmity is
mentioned about His ancestors. What are mentioned are the sins which weakened
the genetic structure, and which was passed down to their descendents according
the great law of heredity. And if the laws of heredity applied to Jesus, as Sr.
White states so emphatically that they did, then He received the same sinful flesh,
the same sinful tendencies and weaknesses of the flesh, which Mary received.
These genetic tendencies of disobedience, written into His DNA, were in the egg
which made Him of the lineage of David. This has been revealed to us and is not a
mystery, as some would have us believe. Just how this was accomplished is a
mystery which has not been revealed.
The reason they would have us believe that it is a mystery is because they want
to keep us in spiritual darkness on the subject. By keeping the people in
ignorance they know that those who depend on their ministers for truth will be so
ignorant as to accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. They want us to
believe that there was a mysterious genetic filter which went through Mary’s egg
and cleaned up the sinful tendencies which would have been passed on to Jesus
as a result of the laws of heredity, as happens to every other child of Adam. If this
is done because of ignorance, on their part, then it is only rebellion which keeps
them from studying it out with an open mind. If it is intellectual dishonesty,
which appears to be the case with many of them, here again we find rebellion at
the root of the problem.
The laws of heredity were not broken at the conception of Jesus, as the Holy
22
Flesh doctrine and some of our brethren teach. And if we accept this doctrine, we
have accepted the protestant version of the Immaculate Conception which has its
roots in the pagan Catholicism of Augustine.
But just because we are born with these genetic weaknesses, we are not
obligated to fall to these susceptibilities we are born with, any more than He was.
Because the odds were against Him, having a nature like ours, she knew that it
was nothing short of a miracle that He didn’t sin. This, she says is a mystery
that is left unexplained, how that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we
are, with the same sinful nature that we have, and yet maintain His holy
innocence. It is important to notice that she never confuses His miraculous
conception with an immaculate one, as many of our people do. Nor does she have
any reason to make the illogical assumption that because He resisted all of the
temptations we endure that He must have been immaculately conceived so as not
to sin. That would make no sense. To the contrary, she makes it clear that that
was not the case. She says that He overcame the tendencies to sin which are
inherent to humanity (within), and the temptations Satan presented to Him
(without), by relying on the power He received from His Father; just as you and I
must depend on Him.
The other mystery is how divinity and humanity were combined, and the
timeline at which humanity was combined with divinity. Why did she address the
time at which He became part of the divine trinity? This wouldn’t have been a
concern of hers unless Baker had been confused by the doctrine of Adoptionism?
Adoptionism was one of several false doctrines which were plaguing the church at
that time. Adoptionism is a Christian belief that states that Jesus was born
merely human, altogether human such as ourselves, and that He became divine
later in life, after He had proven His holiness. There is room in this theory for the
belief that Christ could have sinned, and more than likely did. For this reason she
stressed the fact that, along with the combining of humanity and divinity
simultaneously in a miraculous birth, though He could have sinned, and thus
cultivated evil propensities, He didn’t.
In the second paragraph she continued to address the issue of whether or not
He sinned and that this was the distinct difference between Him and us. Let’s
analyze it.
1. These words do not refer to any human being, except to the Son of the
infinite God. (Here she refers to the texts mentioned as pertaining to the
miraculous nature of His birth as being applicable only to Christ.)
2. 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. (Here she makes special emphasis
on the fact that Christ never sinned. She is making no reference to His
hereditary nature, only His cultivated nature. Some say that He did not
receive a sinful nature, or that He violated the laws of heredity to protect
Himself from the sinful tendencies which are inherent to fallen human
nature. Either way we have a contradiction with DA 49 “Like every child of
Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of
23
heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly
ancestors.” From the context it is clear that she is referring to whether or
not Christ had at any time sinned. If He had, this would naturally have left a
taint of, or inclination to, corruption. This would be a cultivated inclination
or propensity, as opposed to an inherited inclination, which is an inherited
sinful nature.)
3. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called
"that holy thing.” (Here she is making a special note that though He was
tempted in all things like we are, yet He maintained the innocence of purity
and holiness which all are born with. Not one person has ever been born
guilty of any sin.)
4. 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. (Even
though He was as divine as He was human, He was tempted like as we
are. And since God cannot be tempted, we must concur with inspiration
that His divinity had to have been laid aside. His divinity was mysteriously
united with Him in His human body, but obviously not actively participating
in His conscious processes. This is a mystery. If His divinity were in some
way connected to His conscious processes there would be no mystery. The
Bible states clearly that God cannot be tempted. We know from experience
that a hereditary weakness or tendency has a strong influence over us and
tempts us, and that it drives us toward falling into sin. How could Jesus be
tempted, having the same sinful nature we have, and still not make a wrong
choice and sin as we do? This is a mystery. The fact that He was able to
resist the drive of our fallen human nature, and live a life of holiness, is a
mystery that is left unexplained, and to which she and Paul refer to as the
mystery of Godliness.)
5. 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. 5BC 1128, 1129. (No one has been able to understand or explain the
incarnation process. But we accept by faith that which has been revealed.
The reason Christ cannot be altogether human, such as we are, is because
we are not divine. Baker obviously was of the opinion that there was a time
in Christ’s life in which He was not divine; but was only human. This would
make Him altogether one as ourselves, But this cannot be, for the Bible
states clearly that from the beginning He was divine, John 1:1-3. His
character and divine origin is the great emphasis of the Baker letter, not
that His humanity was different from ours.)
This statement is in complete harmony with every other statement that she
makes concerning the nature of Christ, including the ones dealing with the
laws of heredity. He lived a sinless life in fallen, sinful nature. He was that holy
thing not only because He was God, but also because He chose not to sin. Though
24
He was conceived in sin, as are all who are born of a woman, yet He was not
sinning in His mother’s womb. He was that Holy Thing throughout His life,
because He refused to sin. Because of this, I don’t have to adopt the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception, or any of its variant versions, to protect his
sinlessness.
His sinlessness was protected by His choices, not His inherited sinful nature.
He had no propensities of sin because He never gave in to temptation, not because
His ancestors genetic code was put through a cleaning process so as to give Him
the advantage of confronting temptations without inherited sinful tendencies.
Though He received the same weaknesses, or hereditary inclinations, He never
even for a moment consented to commit a wrong act, be it open, or in the mind.
(The definition of propensity is an inclination to, a tendency toward, or a
weakness to something. This can be hereditary or cultivated.) Therefore, in the
context of “He could have sinned; He could have fallen,” we see that falling into
sin is by choice rather than heredity.
Jer 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have
eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one
shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth
shall be set on edge.
This means that the rest of the statement, “but not for one moment was there
in Him an evil propensity,” by the rules of grammar in relation to context, must
mean that there could not be found in Him a tendency as a result of having
transgressed the law. This is to be our experience also.
If we accept that He took on Himself our fallen sinful nature, and did so
without falling into sin, then we have this hope that we too can come to the
point that, even in this fallen sinful nature, we too can reach the same level
of perfection and holiness that He reached. We should be able to reflect His
character fully and live lives of sinlessness, the same level of sinlessness
which Adam had prior to the fall. “Everyone who by faith obeys God's
commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived
before his transgression.” HP 146.5.
As Jesus was in human flesh, so God means His followers to be. 4/01/97
I don’t believe that she is saying here that we can be God in human nature. What
she is saying is that the perfection that He reach we are to reach also.
…it was their privilege to make continual advancement in the Christian life
until they should attain to the purity and holiness of Christ. AA 301.2
God desires to recover that soul and to retrace upon it His own image in
righteousness and holiness. COL 194.3
God requires his people to cleanse themselves "from all filthiness of the flesh
and spirit, perfecting holiness… CTBH 155.3
When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people,
then He will come to claim them as His own. SD 32.7
When the Bible and SOP call us to perfection and holiness, it is always in the
context of what humanity can achieve. Jesus demonstrated to us what we may
become.
25
Just that which you may be He was in human nature. Letter 106, 1896
Jesus also told them (the angels) . . . that He should take man's fallen
nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs. SG Vol. I, p.
25
Now, using the 6 or 7 quotes above, let’s compare the difference between the
physical fallen nature of Christ as opposed to His immaculate spiritual nature;
His character.
“Satan well knows the material with which he has to deal in the
human heart.” AH 326.2, PP 457.3
What kind of material, in the human heart, that Satan knows so well, that he
can work with? It is the inherent propensities of disobedience which we call evil,
sinful tendencies; also known as a sinful nature.
“Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human
heart, and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness
of the humanity, which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his
temptations on man's account.” Confrontation 85.2
How many believe that she is referring here to the physically degenerate heart
diseases found in humanity? I wish that I could say that no one could be so
ignorant. Unfortunately that is not the case. But the reality remains that she is in
fact referring to the fallen, sinful nature; the inherent propensities of obedience,
our inherited sinful tendencies, which we receive from our ancestors. These are
the weaknesses which Christ assumed and had to battle against, and Satan knew
this.
“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 earthly ancestors. He
came with such an heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to
give us the example of a sinless life.
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God.
He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him
who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where
Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe,
subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's
perils in the nature common with every human soul, to fight the battle as
every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal
loss.
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the
face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs
to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from
temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful
risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made
sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be
26
astonished, O earth!” DA 48, 49
Had Christ not shared in the weaknesses of the sinful tendencies passed down
from generation to generation as a result of the working of the great law of
heredity, Satan would have cried foul and the plan of Salvation would have been
flawed, null and void. Thank God for His loving sacrifice.
Why would some say that we are sinners because we are born with hereditary
sinful tendencies? If Christ received by heredity these same weaknesses of the
human heart, the heart which Satan knew so well, does this mean that He was a
sinner by birth? Not unless we accept the doctrine of Original Sin, which is not a
Biblical doctrine. Sr. White rejected this doctrine and states that the flesh, in and
of itself, cannot sin. Therefore, when He accepted our sinful flesh, with all its
hereditary degradation and defilement, which Satan had been so successful in
overcoming until then, He was as sinless as every other baby who is born. Just
because we receive sinful tendencies in our sinful flesh (due to the laws of
heredity), doesn’t mean we are sinners. Thus, when Christ received sinful
tendencies through the same laws of heredity by which we receive them, “as every
child of Adam,” it didn’t in any way make him a sinner. Hereditary sinful
tendencies of the flesh do not equal the sin of guilt. It is the sin of Psalms 51:5;
our sinful nature. The same nature Christ assumed at His miraculous conception,
not Immaculate Conception.
“The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.” The Adventist
Home, 127.
“He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and
defiled by sin. He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He
endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset.” 4BC 1147.4 (Ps. 51:5)
Therefore, if we accept the fact that He, like every child of Adam, accepted the
results of the working of the great law of heredity and did not violate in any way
the laws of heredity, we are forced to give up the doctrines of Original Sin; that a
person is born a sinner because he is born with sinful tendencies, and the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which states that the laws of heredity
were broken and He received no sinful tendencies, which His mother should have
passed on to Him. If we choose to believe that because His divinity was
mysteriously melded with His humanity, that the laws of heredity had to be
broken so that He didn’t receive any sinful tendencies from His mother, or her
ancestors, then we are accepting the paganistic position of Augustine.
If we accept that He took upon Himself our fallen sinful nature, and did so
without falling into sin, then we have this hope that we too can come to the point
that, even in this fallen sinful nature, we too can reach the same level of
perfection and holiness that He reached. We should be able to reflect His
character fully and live lives of sinlessness, the same level of sinlessness which
Adam had prior to the fall.
“Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the
condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.”
HP 146.5.
This is the same sinlessness of Christ’s human nature found in the Baker letter.
27
We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of
the human nature of Christ." SDABC, vol. 5, p. 1131
This is what qualified Christ to be our substitute, the second Adam, that even
though He took on our fallen, sinful nature, He lived a life of sinlessness in sinful
flesh. Resisting temptation, while bearing our weaknesses and infirmities of the
flesh, our inherent propensities of disobedience, this is what qualifies Him to be
our sacrifice and example in all things. (ST 10/17/1900) (ST 11/21/92).
So we see that in His humanity, in His sinful nature, He was 100% one of us,
He just never gave into temptation. But because He was 100% divine, and
therefore eternal, He could not be altogether one like ourselves, because we
borrow life and receive divinity through the Holy Spirit. When we choose to rebel
against God, we give up those divine attributes. This is where we differ from Him.
He had divinity which has life, not borrowed nor derived. Nevertheless, His
humanity could die as ours does.
His inherited human nature was made in all things like as we are. But even
so, His cultivated nature (His character which He developed) was developed after
the divine similitude, because of His constant submission to His mother and to
the Holy Spirit.
These two natures are totally distinct. Our cultivated natures, as was His, are
the network of synapses in the brain. These synapses are developed or destroyed
by using or not using them; dwelling on, or not dwelling on, a thought. I
specifically use the term to dwell, instead of to think, because when a temptation
comes to the mind, we must think in order to make a decision to accept or reject
the temptation. If we dwell on the temptation, we form a sinful synapse, thus we
sin. If we decide that we want nothing to do with the temptation, and end all
consideration, we have not sinned. Deciding to put the temptation aside, or out of
the mind, is not sin.
The inherited human nature is the genetic makeup of that which is passed on
to us by the laws of heredity. We cannot choose whether we want blue eyes or
brown eyes, black skin or white skin, or whether we receive the weakness to loose
our tempers, or of alcoholism. These are laws of nature which we cannot violate.
We cannot change or alter these laws but receive them as they are passed on to
us. This hereditary nature is with us for our lifetime; at least until we receive our
glorified bodies. Therefore, in order that He could be our example in all things,
Christ refused to violate these laws of heredity and accepted the only sinful nature
which His mother had received and could pass on to Him. He did it so that He
could know the power of the sinful nature, the pull of our inherent propensities
of disobedience, the strength of passion, and resisted temptation under the same
condition as we are born in. Thus, and thus only, could He take our sorrows,
griefs, and shame, and be able to endure all the temptations wherewith man is
beset. But now He knows how our infirmities feel by experience and is able to
succor us. Heb. 2:17, 18, YI 12/20/1900 DA 24.2, IHP 155, Ed 78.6 and the list
goes on and on.
If we don’t understand this concept, there will always be apparent
contradictions between such statements as:
28
…not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. 5BC 1128.4
He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and
defiled by sin. He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He
endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. 4BC 1147.4

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the


human nature of Christ." SDABC, vol. 5, p. 1131.
…sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Romans 8:3 (our
sinful flesh)

…not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures… 2T 508.2.


He took upon Him our sinful nature. — BE 4/05/97
Though He had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He
yield to temptation …” IHP 155
He had all the strength of passion which can be had by humanity, with a
fallen, sinful nature, degraded and defiled by sin. But notice, it is just His nature
(DNA) which is defiled by sin, not the passions. Passions are our natural feelings
which we mold by the choices we make. We can train the mind to love or to hate.
It is a choice. Depending on what it is we love or hate determines whether it is a
sinless passion or a sinful passion. Sinful passions are formed by the wrong
choices in the mind. The tendencies to form those sinful passions are in the DNA.
These hereditary tendencies are not the sin of rebellion, but are the sinful nature.
This is what Christ received, just as did every child of Adam.

…taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.” 7BC 925.
Took upon Him our sinful nature. — RH 12/15/96
Took upon Himself, fallen suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by
sin. — YI 12/20/1900.
He took upon Himself our nature (Sinful), and passed through our
experiences. DA 24.2
Though He had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield
to temptation …” IHP 155
Since we must experience temptations with an inherited bent, or tendency,
toward evil, which is termed a sinful nature, therefore, according to these quotes,
He experienced the same temptations, with the same inherent sinful tendencies,
but without choosing to sin. Thus He did not have the passions of our fallen
cultivated nature.
I believe that if we understood what the terms she used meant, we would find
no contradictions in her writings. She could have easily chosen to write like this:
We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the
fallen, sinful human nature of Christ,
and we would have no trouble understanding exactly what she meant. His perfect
sinlessness was not affected in any way by his sinful nature. It had everything to
do with having ‘the mind of Christ’, which means that He constantly met
temptation with the determined will to obey fully, depending totally on the Fathers
29
power to overcome. Thus it is to be with each of us. Even though we have reached
perfection, and we have the mind of Christ we will have to contend with the evil
tendencies of our sinful nature, but our cultivated tendencies will have been
eliminated already.
If we understand this we will feel no need to adopt the Immaculate Conception
theory to protect Christ from sin. He had to overcome the same way as we do;
through faith and dependence on the Father.
Even with all of the evidences provided, some will still want to cling to the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and try to base their position on these
words from the Baker letter.
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
We won’t even go into the subject of whether it is proper to base a doctrine on a
sentence or two from a letter.
What does the word “of” mean?
1. Derived or coming from; originating at or from,
2. Caused by; resulting from
Here she is saying that Christ had no propensities derived from, or which came
from, were caused by, or resulted from sin. But this brings up another question.
Is she referring to propensities of the sin of Ps 51:5, and Rom 8:3, sin as nature
which brings with it no guilt or condemnation, or is she referring to propensities
of the sin of James 4:17 and 1Jn 3:4, 8, the sin of commission or omission which
does bring guilt? As we look again at the quote, it becomes crystal clear. She
immediately afterwards makes a comparison between the two Adams. The first
had no taint of sin upon him. In contrast to this she says, “But Jesus Christ…
took upon himself human nature.”
Some might like to stop here and argue that she doesn’t say sinful human
nature. Therefore she must be referring to the nature of the first Adam which was
without a taint of sin upon him. If this is the case, then we need to drop the word
“but” which shows contrast and replace it with the word “and” to show similarity
in the comparison. But then we would have to edit several hundred other quotes
of hers which state clearly that He came with a fallen, sinful nature, to clean them
up also. Do we have such a right? No. We don’t have any more right to change her
quotes any more than we have the right to try to change the meaning of, and
misinterpret, even a few of her quotes like the ones we have been analyzing here.
30
Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of
the great law of heredity. — DA, p. 49
Christ declared, no single principle of human nature will I violate. —
Ellen White, Ms. 65, 1899
In my understanding, and in hers, the laws of heredity are principles of human
nature. Thus she understood that Jesus too was born with the inherent
propensities of disobedience.
So, when she turns around and states in the same quote that there was not in
Him an evil propensity, is she referring here to the inherent propensities? Notice
that as we read on we see that she answers our question for us. She says that He
could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him
an evil propensity. She is clearly referring to the definition of sin which is defined
in James 4:7 and 1John 3:4, 8; the sin which brings with it guilt and
condemnation. Hence she is referring to propensities, or tendencies, which are
cultivated, not those which are passed on by the laws of heredity which bring with
them no guilt or condemnation. She is very careful in the way she treats this
difference.
She states here also that because of Adams sin, he passed on to his posterity,
the inherent propensities of disobedience. Using dictionary definitions again we
see that because of disobedience there were developed in man propensities which
are passed on by heredity. These propensities, however, are written in the flesh
(the DNA), not the mind. Does having the sinful tendencies of the flesh make us
sinners?
. . . The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. —The
Adventist Home, p. 127
She makes it clear that having sinful flesh does not in any way make us sinners.
It is inevitable that children should suffer from the consequences of
parental wrongdoing, but they are not punished for the parents' guilt, except
as they participate in their sins. PP 306.3
From this we understand clearly that it is inevitable that children receive the
propensities of disobedience (sinful flesh) as a result of parental wrongdoing, but
they do not receive any of their parents guilt and are thus guiltless before God
until such time as they participate in their sins.
Did Jesus take our fallen, sinful flesh? She says yes, the Bible says yes,
therefore we must conclude that He too received the inherent propensities of
disobedience through the laws of heredity. This is the law of heredity; the same
law Christ refused to violate in any way when He assumed humanity.
It is not the flesh which incurs guilt but the participating in sin which brings
guilt and condemnation. She never subscribes to the doctrine of Original Sin
which states that we are sinners at birth, carrying with us the guilt and
condemnation of Adams, or any of our ancestors, sins. Therefore, she saw Christ
with our contaminated flesh, but with a mind which He never allowed to be
contaminated. In other words she saw Him with inherent propensities of
disobedience but with a mind which did not cultivate any propensities of
disobedience.
31
Now we can see how she could write what she wrote to Kellogg without
violating her literary or intellectual integrity. It is also obvious that there is no
contradiction between the Baker letter and the Kellogg letter.
And when the fullness of time was come, He stepped down from His
throne of highest command, laid aside His royal robe and kingly crown,
clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to this earth to exemplify
what humanity must do and be in order to overcome the enemy and to sit
with the Father upon His throne. Coming, as He did, as a man, with all
the evil tendencies to which man is heir, He made it possible for
Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan, to meet
and be subjected to, the rebel who had been expelled from heaven,
working in every conceivable manner to destroy his faith. Letter K-303,
1903
Even if she had never used the term tendencies, which she did, the thought is
still understood by the use of many other synonymous terms like weaknesses,
infirmities, wretchedness, susceptibilities, liabilities, and the list goes on.
This is why I see no contradiction in any of Sr. Whites writings. Just because
He refused to violate the laws of heredity, and accepted the nature of man with all
of its inherited tendencies to sin, doesn’t in any way make Him a sinner. The fact
that He did accept the workings of the great law of heredity qualified Him to be
our example and to demonstrate to the universe that man, in his inherently
weakened condition (with it’s tendencies toward evil) could, with the help of the
Father, crucify the flesh, crucify the will, and overcome all of the temptations of
Satan. He showed us how to crucify the will.
Paul declares, "I am crucified with Christ." Gal. 2:20. There is nothing
so hard as the crucifixion of the will. Christ was tempted in all points
like as we are; but His will was ever kept on the side of God's will. OHC
107.3
Now, my question to the brethren of the SDARM is, since this position which
was held by Sister White, and most of the writers of her day, and which has been
held by the majority of Adventists since she died, until the 1950’s, when and why
did so many of the ministers of the Reform decide to adopt a position which is
shared by the Holy Flesh movement, Catholicism, apostate Protestantism, and a
large portion of pastors of the SDA church who have accepted the new theology?
Even though they won’t come right out and say that they accept the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception, yet it boils down to just that. And unfortunately, even
though I have been assured that the church does not teach the doctrine of
Original Sin, yet there are many preachers who are allowed to preach it freely, and
many times by invitation. We tithe our anise and cumin, and deal strictly with
those who disagree with us, stating that all must accept the position of the
church, whether it is right or wrong, until such time as a majority can come
together at General Conference in session to change it with a 2/3rd majority vote. I
have never seen where the church changed its Christological position from that of
Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, Sr. White, and many other writers of their
day. But what I see constantly is the Baker letter being taken out of context and
32
misinterpreted by our theologians and Bible workers. I think it is time that our
brethren do an honest evaluation of the Baker letter and move on to the other
materials available on this subject so that all can see the harmony and can bring
their views back into line with the message of 1888.
Satan hopes to involve the remnant people of God in the general ruin that
is coming upon the earth. As the coming of Christ draws nigh, he will be
more determined and decisive in his efforts to overthrow them. Men and
women will arise professing to have some new light or some new revelation
whose tendency is to unsettle faith in the old landmarks. Their
doctrines will not bear the test of God's word, yet souls will be
deceived. 5T 295.3
Shortly after Jones and Waggoner gave their presentations at the GC Session,
many of the leading brethren, including Uriah Smith, the President, along with
others, opposed this message. Sr. White sent them letters pleading with them to
cease their opposition to Gods special message, the third angels message in verity,
as she called it. These letters are available to anyone who wants them. Here are
some of her communications with those who opposed the messages given by these
two young men and another pioneer, W.W. Prescott.
Those who since the Minneapolis meeting have had the privilege of
listening to the words spoken by the messengers of God, Elder A.T. Jones,
Prof. Prescott, Brn. E. J. Waggoner, O. A. Olsen, and many others, at the
campmeetings and ministerial institutes, have had the invitation, Come, for
all things are now ready. Come to the supper prepared for you. Light,
Heaven's light has been shining. The trumpet has given a certain sound.
Those who have made their various excuses for neglecting to respond to the
call, have lost much. 1888 1455.2
W. W. Prescott has been bearing the burning words of truth such as I
have heard from some in 1844; the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is upon
him. Prescott has never had such power in preaching the truth. Letter 25,
1895
Prescott has had outpouring of Holy Spirit since coming (sic) here; we
distinguish voice of the true Shepherd. The truth poured forth from his lips
as people never heard it before; people say that that man is inspired. Letter
82, 1895
“… Be careful what steps you take in expressing your differences with
your brethren. You cannot tell how it pains me to see some of our brethren
taking a course that I know is not pleasing to God. They are full of jealousy
and evil surmising, and are ever ready to show in just what way they differ
with Elder Jones or Waggoner. The same spirit that was manifested in the
past manifests itself at every opportunity; but this is not from the impulse of
the Spirit of God.
I have not received a line from either Elder Jones or Waggoner since I left
Battle Creek. I did not write a line to them until the last mail, when I wrote
to Elder Jones, and a few weeks before sent a letter to Elder Waggoner
concerning the work in England. But I can never forget the experience which
33
we had in Minneapolis, or the things that were then revealed to me in regard
to the spirit that controlled men, the words spoken, the actions done in
obedience to the powers of evil.
“Some have made confession, yourself among the number. Others have
made no confession, for they were too proud to do this, and they have not
come to the light. They were moved at the meeting by another spirit, and
they knew not that God had sent these young men, Elders Jones and
Waggoner, to bear a special message to them, which they treated with
ridicule and contempt, not realizing that the heavenly intelligences were
looking upon them and registering their words in the books of heaven.
The words and actions of every one who took part in this work will stand
registered against them until they make confession of their wrong. Those
who do not repent of their sin will, if circumstances permit, repeat the same
actions. I know that at that time the Spirit of God was insulted, and now
when I see anything approaching to the same course of action, I am
exceedingly pained. The people of God have had an opportunity to see
what is the work these agents are doing, and yet those who are opposed
to the points of truth which they brought out will, if occasion affords
them a chance, make it appear that they are not in harmony with
them, as much as to say, Beware of what they teach, for they carry
matters to the extreme; they are not safe men…
I know that this is the very position many would take if either of these
men were to fall, and I pray that these men upon whom God has laid the
burden of a solemn work may be able to give the trumpet a certain sound,
and honor God at every step, and that their path at every step may grow
brighter and brighter, until the close of time.” 15MR 82-85
Are our ministers too proud to make confession for having rejected the light
from heaven? Are they also insulting the Spirit of God by rejecting the messages of
Gods messengers, Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott by making it appear that they
are not in harmony with them, as much as to say, beware of what they teach, for
they carry matters to the extreme; they are not safe men? I have heard our
ministers, not even “as much as to say”, but openly stating that we are to beware
of these messengers of God and what they taught, that our church is not in
harmony with their messages, and that they are not safe men. They claim that we
must only accept from those sermons, which Sr. White requested to be printed for
the people to read and study, that which they have deemed as truth. I have yet to
find one testimony where Sr. White even insinuates that we are to disregard any
of their messages; or any part of their messages.
A marvelous work shall take place. Ministers, lawyers, doctors, who have
permitted these falsehoods to overmaster their spirit of discernment, will be
themselves deceivers, united with the deceived. A spiritual drunkenness will
take possession of them. To the unfaithful stewards the Lord says, "Take
your pleasure and walk in blindness as drunken men, for, after having many
opportunities, and refusing to improve them, you will act at last as the
drunkard acts, throwing away your hope of eternal life." Seeking deep to
34
hide their counsel from the Lord, and making lies their refuge, they will
misinterpret the warnings and messages God has sent, placing on these
warnings their false statements, to make God's Word of no effect.--Letter
311, Oct. 30, 1905.
O, my very soul is drawn out in these things! Men, who have not learned
to submit themselves to the control and discipline of God, are not competent
to train the youth, to deal with human minds. It is just as much an
impossibility for them to do this work as it would be for them to make a
world. That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of
God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,--that is
past. What we want now is reorganization. We want to begin at the
foundation, and to build upon a different principle. GCB, April 3, 1901 par.
25
I won't even go into the blatant travesties of justice played out by the field
because of their voluntary blindness to these truths. It would take volumes to
record the ridiculous statements, actions, impressions laid on the churches here
in Florida in an effort to establish the new theology and wipe out the pillar
landmarks established by the pioneers just prior to 1900. They have gone so far
as to disfellowship me, and refuse re-baptism to a brother who also refuses to give
up the old paths (Jer 50:11-12). But this act of defiance against heaven was
predicted by Sr. White.
Last January the Lord showed me that erroneous theories and
methods would be brought into our camp meetings, and that the
history of the past would be repeated. I felt greatly distressed. I was
instructed to say that at these demonstrations demons in the form of men
are present, working with all the ingenuity that Satan can employ to
make the truth disgusting to sensible people; that the enemy was trying
to arrange matters so that the camp meetings, which have been the
means of bringing the truth of the third angel's message before
multitudes, should lose their force and influence. . . .
The third angel's message is to be given in straight lines. It is to
be kept free from every thread of the cheap, miserable inventions of
men's theories, prepared by the father of lies, and disguised as was
the brilliant serpent used by Satan as a medium of deceiving our first
parents. Thus Satan tries to put his stamp upon the work God would
have stand forth in purity.
Have the theories and inventions of men, prepared by the father of lies been
presented at our campmeetings? Yes, and even at the GC Session of 2007.
The high-handed power that has been developed, as though position has
made men gods, makes me afraid, and ought to cause fear. It is a curse
wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. This lording it over God's
heritage will create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of
insubordination will result. The people are learning that men in high
positions of responsibility cannot be trusted to mold and fashion other
men's mind and characters. The result will be a loss of confidence even in
35
the management of faithful men. But the Lord will raise up laborers who
realize their own nothingness without special help from God. Age after age
Jesus has been delivering His goods (truth) to His church. At the time of the
first advent of Christ to our world, the men who composed the Sanhedrin
exercised their authority in controlling men according to their will. Thus the
souls whom Christ had given His life to free from the bondage of Satan were
brought under bondage to him in another form. TM 361.1

“It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by


the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove
that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had
done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this
position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the
control of the Spirit of God. They walk in the sparks of their own
kindling, and cannot distinguish between the fire they have kindled
and the light which God has given, and they walk in blindness as did
the Jews.
I know that this is the very position many would take if either of these
men were to fall, and I pray that these men upon whom God has laid the
burden of a solemn work may be able to give the trumpet a certain sound,
and honor God at every step, and that their path at every step may grow
brighter and brighter, until the close of time.” 15MR 82-85
There are ministers and workers who would love to give the trumpet that
certain sound but know that to do so would cause them to loose their jobs with
the church. How sad. But there are those of us who are not dependent on the
church for our daily bread and are disgusted with the Sanhedrin of today. We
have seen that because they walk in the sparks of their own kindling they will
even refuse to accept several clear quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy, not to
mention that they reject the very heart of the message of 1888. But God has a
message for these ministers and Bible workers who would replace the established
faith of the body by Sr. White and the pioneers with the new theology. Read
carefully Ezekiel chapter 13.
I sent a letter to some of the brethren asking that the GC in Session take a
moment of their time to consider this subject but as of yet have heard nothing. I
hope that soon we can resolve this so we don’t end up like the Adventist Church,
with some holding up the 1888 message and others putting it down and teaching
contrary to it. I have heard many of our brethren claiming to teach the 1888
message while at the same time putting down parts of the message and claiming
that the messages cannot be trusted because the messengers God sent to deliver
the messages were not inspired and cannot be trusted, yet Sr. White makes no
such suggestion. Who are we to believe? As for me and my house, we will follow
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What about yours?
I issue a challenge to anyone, from the Reform Movement or any other church,
to show me where I have erred in this presentation to the church. I especially
solicit feedback from ministers and Bible workers, and if anyone sends me even
36
one quote which contradicts what I have presented, and shows me to be in error, I
will just as publicly renounce any position I have taken erroneously. Unlike others
I know, I am willing to admit if I am in error and take the necessary steps to undo
any harm which I may have caused by my words or actions. If only others would
step up and be just as responsible.
Elder [Uriah] Smith, the exercises of the past night prompts me to write. I
know that you have been walking not in the light. You have had evidence
and might have had a much larger array of evidence if you had any room to
receive it. Jesus, the precious Saviour, has again and again sent you the
very light you needed, but you did not place yourself in the channel where it
could be communicated to you. You gathered about your soul the
covering of unbelief till you cannot distinguish light from darkness and
error from truth. Never, never will you change this order of things until you
possess the humility of a little child. This will never be until you fall upon
the rock and are broken. Self then dies; new habits are to be formed; strong
inclinations and propensities are overcome. Enemies within and without are
ready to spring into life and overcome you. "Without me" said Christ, "ye can
do nothing." Do you decline the contest? Do you refuse to fall on the rock? If
so, there is not the slightest assurance in your case that you will ever
recover yourself out of the snare of the devil. Your attitude has encouraged a
state of things in our churches which you have not measured. The result of
your course and your working on the same line since you left Minneapolis
has made the carrying out of the work given me of God to do fifty fold harder
than it need to have been. You have barred my way, but O, how little did you
know the real result of your work. This has been opened before me. When
you have stated that Sr. White was influenced by W. C. W., A. T. Jones, and
E. J. Waggoner, you have planted in hearts infidelity that has been
nourished and has borne fruit. You will not be pleased to reap the harvest.
Satan takes everything of this character and makes it a living active agent in
destroying faith in the very work the Lord would have them to do. Every soul
that fully takes your words and believes them are correctly represented by
the words of Christ, "I would that thou were either cold or hot, so then
because that thou art lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth." Decided
opposition would have done me less harm. A lack of faith in the messages
God has given me to bear of the order represented is decided unbelief to all
intents and purposes. There is not one bit of savor in such a faith, and the
faith of Elder Butler is of the same order, valueless, having no savor, I count
nothing upon you or him to harmonize with me in my work given me of God.
Your very position is a decided negative to the efforts I may make as God
shall move upon me by his holy Spirit. I have not felt grieved as far as my
personal self is concerned, but when the work that the Lord has given me is
of such a character that faith needs to be constantly cherished because of
the warnings, reproofs and searchings of the hearts, and the laying bare of
hidden sins is not pleasant and agreeable to the natural heart, and many
give a bare assent to truth when they are not sanctified through the truth.
37
They do not in Spirit represent Christ. They are surface workers, and delude
themselves with the idea that they are Christians. So effectually does this
delusion take possession of heart and mind that the sharp arrows of the
Lord fail to penetrate the armor of self righteousness in which they are
encased. The spell is so strong that they will listen to the truth, the most
earnest and powerful, even to the very portraying of the delusions which are
upon them without any thought of self-examination to see if it means them.
This is the class our Saviour found most difficult to arouse. The most
authoritative teachings were heard and listened to as if they heard not. Thus
it is with many, many in this generation. There will be a hatred kindled
against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to
unsettle the faith of the churches in them for this reason: Satan cannot have
so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions
if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the spirit of God are heeded.
What better course to please the enemy and grieve the spirit of God could be
pursued then that which than that which has been pursued by you, my
brother, a teacher in Israel. You have had quite a number fully engaged with
you in the work, men in responsible positions, presidents of conferences,
ministers and workers, that have formed a confederacy to question, to
criticize, to say, "Report and we will report it." The position these men have
occupied and the influence this position had given them has caused many to
doubt, who will never be settled again and the deceptions and delusions of
these last days will overcome them, because heaven's divine illumination is
powerless to set them in order for they have decided from the example given
them. It makes no difference whether they believe or disbelieve, so if any
reproof comes to them, which they wish not to believe, they will say, "O, Sr.
White is influenced. Some one has told her these things. If Elder Smith who
knows all about the testimonies says this is only her own opinion and her
own judgment, and he does not accept the teachings of the testimonies, and
he such a good man, I will follow his example and I will risk it." This is a
very unwise thing to do, yet many are doing this and have done it. I know
that the spirit of the Lord was holding me here in Battle Creek that all might
have my evidence whether it was of God or of the Devil. "By their fruits ye
shall know them." As in the days of Christ some have overlooked the very
kind of evidence God has given them and have said show us a sign, work
some miracle if you are right. 1888 794.1
The church of God is to shine as a light to the world, but Jesus is the
illuminator, and He is represented as moving among His people. No one
shines by his own light. The Lord God almighty and the Lamb are the
lights thereof. The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner
is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto
anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to
others the God-given rays. Elder Smith, had you been unprejudiced, had
not reports affected you and led you to bar your heart against the entrance
of what these men presented; had you, like the noble Bereans, searched the
38
Scriptures to see if their testimony agreed with its instruction, you would
have stood upon vantage ground, and been far advanced in Christian
experience. If you had received the truth into a good and honest heart, you
would have become a living channel of light, with clear perception and
sanctified imagination. Your conceptions of truth would have been exalted,
and your heart made joyful in God. God would have given you a testimony
clear, powerful, and convincing. But the first position you took in regard to
the message and the messenger, has been a continual snare to you and a
stumbling block.
As one long experienced in the truth, it was your place to be among those
who should first catch the message from the God of heaven, and voice it to
the people; but the enemy presented in a magnified light every matter that
seemed objectionable to you, and your imagination has not pictured facts to
you. The enemy had prepared a long chain of circumstances, like links in a
chain, that you might be prevented from standing where you should have
stood. You have lost a rich and powerful experience, and that loss, resulting
from refusing the precious treasures of truth presented to you, is still your
loss. You are not where God would have had you, and you have missed the
providential links one after another in the chain, so that now it is hard for
you to see the mysterious connections in the endless chain of providence in
His special work.
I write these words, not to afflict your soul, but to warn you that you may
guard against repeating the same experience, thinking it was one ordered of
the Lord. God was seeking to lead you in the past, and it is necessary you
understand this, that you may not place stumbling blocks before your own
feet, over which you will stumble. I know not whether or not you will receive
this as from God; but I beseech you for your own soul's sake, take these
words written to you in love, and divest yourself of unbelieving, hard
thoughts. Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou
standest is holy ground. Lay aside fleshly reasonings. Let every soul now
stand before God in his own nothingness, and draw nigh to God.
The many and confused ideas in regard to Christ's righteousness and
justification by faith are the result of the position you have taken toward the
man and the message sent of God. But oh, Jesus longs to bestow upon you
the richest blessings, and to make you a mouthpiece for Himself, that you
may declare concerning the grace that dwelleth in you. Jesus has looked
upon you with sorrow, because you have not answered His expectations.
"Watchman, what of the night?" This is the question that has been asked
and will continue to be asked and answered. What will you answer, my
brother?
The Laodicean message has been sounding. Take this message in all
its phases and sound it forth to the people wherever Providence opens
the way. Justification by faith and the righteousness of Christ are the
themes to be presented to a perishing world. Oh, that you may open the
door of your heart to Jesus! The voice of Jesus, the great vendor of heavenly
39
treasures, is calling to you, "I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire,
that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed."
But I will write no more. My heart is drawn out in love toward you, and my
desire is that you shall triumph with the third angel's message.--Letter 24,
1892.
That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God
to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,--that is
past. What we want now is reorganization. We want to begin at the
foundation, and to build upon a different principle. GCB, April 3, 1901
par. 24 &25
So why am I writing all this? Some may say it is out of anger or retaliation for
the unjust way I was treated. In reality, since they have disfelloshipped me
because I refuse to accept the new theology, and that it is now a matter of public
record, the church needs to know what their church is doing. The field and GC
have been advised in writing and have chosen to ignore the situation. Since I
know, from the false accusations which have been leveled at me, that their record
of my case is distorted, I feel that it is only fair that the truth should be made
known. They have refused to put their accusations and evidences in writing for
me. But I understand their reasoning. They know that what they put in writing
can, and will, come back to haunt them. I, on the other hand have never ceased to
communicate my positions with the brethren in writing, for I am not ashamed of
the Gospel of Christ.
My wife has become so discouraged that she is afraid to invite the catholic
family that we have been studying with, as well as the others she meets and
shares her faith with, to come to church. It seems to her oxymoronic to teach
these people that the doctrines of original sin and the Immaculate Conception are
errors which were introduced by Augustine, and bring them to a Reform church
where they hear these same old erroneous doctrines being taught.
Another family, that has been ostracized by the church, for the same reason,
has been visiting Adventist churches on Sabbaths as another avenue of
missionary work. Since the new theology was introduced to the Adventist church
in the late 1940’s and 50’s, thanks to the book Questions on Doctrines, there are
many who have accepted these errors as truth and have the same right to hear
the unadulterated 1888 message as do those of the Reform. Plus this family can’t
be disfellowshipped from the SDA Church as they can in the Reform.
What can be done about this dilemma? Unfortunately we have no Gamaliels to
try to check the spirit of Satan which has taken hold of the ministry. And we have
no Paul’s who will stand up against the Peters in times of confusion to set the
records straight.
I find it curious that due to the work of Sr. White, Haskell, and Jones, that
those of the Holy Flesh Movement, who refused to come into harmony with Jones,
Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, and Sr. White were removed from their offices. Yet
this same theology, which our ministers are espousing, is not only being tolerated
by the rest of the church, but those who oppose it are being refused membership
for not giving up the position of the pioneers, which were used by God to help
40
establish the faith of the body. Many of our ministers would rather follow the book
Questions on Doctrine. Or would they rather I say the Holy Flesh movement?
Maybe they would even prefer that I say Augustine, since he was the originator of
these doctrines into Christianity. How far has our church traveled back toward
Babylon? Not just in doctrine, but in administrative order. I think we should
consider carefully GCB 4/3/01.
O, my very soul is drawn out in these things! Men who have not learned
to submit themselves to the control and discipline of God, are not competent
to train the youth, to deal with human minds. It is just as much
impossibility for them to do this work as it would be for them to make a
world. That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of
God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,--that is
past. What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the
foundation, and to build upon a different principle. GCB, April 3, 1901 par.
25
I also write this because Sr. White said that the sins of Babylon will be
exposed. And since their ire has been kindled against me because I refuse to give
up the 1888 message, to accept Babylon’s doctrines of Original Sin and the
Immaculate Conception, as expressed by the apostate protestant churches and
the Holy Flesh movement, I feel that it is my duty to continue to expose these sins
of Babylon, even though they have infiltrated the remnant church, just as Sr.
White, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, and others did in their day.
Just because we belong to the remnant church doesn’t give us the right to
violate God’s laws. And if the ministers are too proud to repent and confess their
sins publicly, and ask forgiveness of those whom they have wronged, there is
nothing more that can be done in their behalf. Those of us who still cherish the
1888 message have long prayed for them. Just as the Christian church of the
dark ages separated herself from God by disfellowshipping the reformers, so our
church does the same when disfellowshiping her members for refusing to give up
truth for false doctrines. God have mercy on their souls.

I appeal to our ministers to be sure that their feet are placed on the
platform of eternal truth. "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and
see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein."
Jeremiah 6:16. 8T 296.3
Let none seek to tear away the foundations of our faith--the
foundations that were laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of
the word and by revelation. Upon these foundations we have been building
for the last fifty years. Men may suppose that they have found a new way
and that they can lay a stronger foundation than that which has been laid.
But this is a great deception. Other foundation can no man lay than that
which has been laid. 8T 297.1
In the past many have undertaken the building of a new faith, the
establishment of new principles. But how long did their building stand? It
soon fell, for it was not founded upon the Rock. 8T 297.2
41
Did not the first disciples have to meet the sayings of men? Did they not
have to listen to false theories, and then, having done all, to stand firm,
saying: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid"? 1 Corinthians
3:11. 8T 297.3
So we are to hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.
Words of power have been sent by God and by Christ to this people, bringing
them out from the world, point by point, into the clear light of present truth.
With lips touched with holy fire, God's servants have proclaimed the
message. The divine utterance has set its seal to the genuineness of the
truth proclaimed. 8T 297.4
The Lord calls for a renewal of the straight testimony borne in years past.
He calls for a renewal of spiritual life. The spiritual energies of His people
have long been torpid, but there is to be a resurrection from apparent death.
8T 297.5
By prayer and confession of sin we must clear the King's highway. As we
do this, the power of the Spirit will come to us. We need the Pentecostal
energy. This will come, for the Lord has promised to send His Spirit as the
all-conquering power. 8T 297.6
We must love and obey the truth for this time. This will save us from
accepting strong delusions. God has spoken to us through His word. He has
spoken to us through the testimonies to the church and through the books
that have helped to make plain our present duty and the position that we
should now occupy. The warnings that have been given, line upon line,
precept upon precept, should be heeded. If we disregard them, what excuse
can we offer? 8T 298.1
I beseech those who are laboring for God not to accept the spurious for
the genuine. Let not human reason be placed where divine, sanctifying truth
should be. Christ is waiting to kindle faith and love in the hearts of His
people. Let not erroneous theories receive countenance from the people who
ought to be standing firm on the platform of eternal truth. God calls upon us
to hold firmly to the fundamental principles that are based upon
unquestionable authority. 8T 298.2

Miscellaneous Materials
The Established Faith of the Pioneers
What was their position?

"We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work ... The word given
me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced."
(CW, p. 28).

"The standard-bearers who have fallen in death, are to speak through the
reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be
42
heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for
this time." (CW, p. 32).

E. J. Waggoner

"Was that holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary born in sinful flesh,
and did that flesh have the same evil tendencies to contend with that ours
does?"

A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon
himself the likeness of man, in order that he might suffer death, it must have
been sinful man that he was made like, for it is only sin that causes death…
Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon himself the flesh, not of a sinless
being, but of sinful man, that is, that the flesh which he assumed had all the
weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is
shown by the very words upon which this article is based He was "made of
the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of
human nature. He says of himself, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in
sin did my mother conceive me." PS 51:5.

"For he [God] hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him."

This is much stronger statement that he was made "in the likeness of sinful
flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is a greater mystery than that the Son of God
should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin.
Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon himself
sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made
righteousness.

That Christ should be born under the law was a necessary consequence of
his being born of a woman, taking on him the nature of Abraham, being
made of the seed of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Human nature is
sinful, and the law of God condemns all sin. Not that men are born into the
world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of
right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful
tendencies, owning to the sins of their ancestors. And when Christ came into the
world, he came subject to all the conditions to which other children are subject.

From these texts we are enabled to read with a better understanding Heb. 5:
7,8, where the apostle says of Christ:--

"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and
supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him
from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned
43
he obedience by the things which he suffered." Jesus spent whole nights in
prayer to the Father. Why should this be, if he had not been oppressed by
the enemy, through the inherited weakness of the flesh?

He "learned obedience by the things which he suffered." Not that he was ever
disobedient, for he "knew no sin:" but by the things which he suffered in the
flesh, he learned what men have to contend against in their efforts to be
obedient. And so, "in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to
succor them that are tempted." "For we have not a High Priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we
may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need." Heb. 4: 15,16.

One of the greatest comforts and aids to the Christian who is warring
against foes without, and crushing out tendencies within, is to know that he
has a high priest who, though "higher than the heavens," can be touched
with the feeling of his infirmities; who was in all points tempted as his
followers are tempted, yet he was without sin. If Jesus had sinned, while we
might love his fellowship and teaching, we would have no confidence in him as a
Saviour; for if he had failed in his warfare, he would in ours. If he had not been
tempted even as we, we would not have confidence in his help, for we would
reason that he had never met our temptations in our frailty, that he had
never resisted the inherited passions and weaknesses of generations;
therefore he could not know how to help us. Lack of power in the one case, and
lack of knowledge and wisdom in the other, would be the constant objection and
cavil brought by the skeptical against such a Saviour.
But neither of these objections can be brought against Christ Jesus. He came
in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3); was "made of the seed of David
according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3); was "made of a woman, made under the law"
(Gal. 4:4); he "took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed
of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16); in fact, "in all things it behooved him to be made like
unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he
suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." Therefore,
according to the word of truth, Jesus possessed the sinful flesh with all of its
sinful and inherited tendencies to evil from Judah down. Therefore he can be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities, as he was tempted even as we.
Heb. 4:15. And Christ has power to help. He suffered being tempted, but it was
always the suffering of travail; it brought forth fruit of righteousness. Men often
suffer through temptation, the suffering of sin. Christ's suffering was the travail of
righteousness. With sinful tendencies in his flesh, he never sinned, but
"condemned sin (overthrew sin) in the flesh," a triumphant conqueror, first over
sinful flesh, second over the results of sin, death. Rom. 8:3,4. This is our
Redeemer. He knows how to help; he is "mighty to save."

44
Men are not saved by being delivered utterly from the flesh but by
receiving power to conquer and rule over all the evil tendencies and the
desires of the flesh…
Therefore, instead of trying to save men by delivering them utterly
from the flesh just where they were, Jesus came to the world and put
himself in the flesh just where men are and met that flesh just as it is, with
all its tendencies and desires, and by the divine power which he brought by
faith, He "condemned sin in the flesh" and thus brought to all mankind that
divine faith which brings the divine power to man to deliver him from the power of
the flesh and the law of sin, just where he is, and to give him assured dominion
over the flesh, just as it is.
Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours
(because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate
conception of the virgin Mary? Mind you, in him was no sin, but the mystery of
God manifest in the flesh, the marvel of the ages, the wonder of the angels, that
thing which even now they desire to understand, and which they can form no just
idea of, only as they are taught it by the church, is the perfect manifestation of the
life of God in its spotless purity in the midst of sinful flesh.(Congregation: Amen!)
O, that is a marvel, is it not?
Suppose we start with the idea for a moment that Jesus was so separate
from us, that is, so different from us that he did not have in his flesh
anything to contend with. It was sinless flesh. Then, of course, you see how
the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception necessarily follows. But
why stop there? Mary being born sinless then, of course, her mother also had
sinless flesh. But you can not stop there. You must go back to her mother, and in
turn her mother, and her mother, and her parents, and so back until you come to
Adam: and the result? - There never was a fall; Adam never sinned; and thus, you
see, by that tracing of it, we find the essential identity of Roman Catholicism and
Spiritualism and all other false doctrines - evolution also - which claims that there
never has been any fall, but only an ascent: - the Spiritualistic idea that
everything in man is right, and man is God himself. You see it comes to that when
you trace it back. The Established Faith of the Body, page 0112
General Conference Bulletin, 1897 No. 5, p. 57
The word was made perfect flesh in Adam, but in Christ was the word made
fallen flesh. Christ goes down to the bottom, and there is the Word flesh, sinful
flesh.
GCB 1897 p. 89, col. 1
Christ has taken all our weakness upon Himself. . . .

Professor W. W. Prescott
The Word Became Flesh
Let us consider, first, what kind of flesh; for this is the very foundation
of this question as it relates to us personally. "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,
45
that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their
lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels;
but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved
Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the
sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is
able to succour them that are tempted." Heb. 2:14-18. That through death,
being made subject to death, 1taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He might, by
His dying, destroy him that had the power of death.
"Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but he took on Him the
seed of Abraham." The margin says, "He taketh not hold of angels, but of the
seed of Abraham He taketh hold;" and one version reads, "He helps not angels."
We see the reason from the next verse: "Wherefore in all things it behooved Him
to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful
high priest, in things pertaining to God." "Now to Abraham and his seed were
the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and
to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. 3:16. Now verily, He helps the seed of
Abraham by Himself becoming the seed of Abraham. God, sending His own
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that
the righteousness of the law might be revealed in us, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit.
So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ
had exactly the same flesh that we bear — flesh of sin, flesh in which we
sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that
flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside. No matter how you may have looked
at it in the past, look at it now as it is in the word; and the more you look at it
in that way, the more reason you will have to thank God that it is so.

God made man a little lower than the angels, but man fell much lower by his
sin. Now he is far separated from God; but he is to be brought back again.
Jesus Christ came for that work, and in order to do it, He came, 7not
where man was before he fell, but where man was after he fell. This is
the lesson of Jacob's ladder. It rested on the earth where Jacob was, but the
topmost round reached to heaven. When Christ comes to help man out of the
pit, He does not come to the edge of the pit and look over, and say, Come up
here, and I will help you back. If man could help himself up to the point from
whence he has fallen, he could do all the rest. If he could help himself one
step, he could help himself all the way; but it is because man is utterly ruined,
weak, and wounded and broken to pieces, in fact, perfectly helpless, that
Jesus Christ comes right down where he is, and meets him there. He
takes his flesh and becomes a brother to him. Jesus Christ is a brother to
us in the flesh; He was born into the family.
RH 3/10/96 p. 152, col. 3

46
He (Jesus Christ) did not take the likeness of man just as Adam was before
he fell, but He came down to the very plane to which man had fallen . . . and
took upon Himself the flesh of sin.

BE 5/02/98 p. 138, col. 2.


. . . It was necessary . . . that the Word should be made flesh, and not
merely that it should be made flesh, but that it should bear the same kind of
flesh. And so God sent His Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh. . . ."
GCB 1895 p. 9, col. 1
. . . it is because the children were partakers of flesh and blood that He also
Himself likewise took part of the same flesh and blood. . . .
RH 4/07/96 p. 218, col. 1
. . . (He was) to enter upon all the conditions of our fallen humanity.

A. T. Jones

GCB 1895 p. 266, col. 1


. . . And in noticing the other evening how He became one of us, we found
that it was by birth from the flesh. He is "the seed of David according to the
flesh." He took not the nature of angels, but the nature of the seed of Abraham;
and His genealogy goes to Adam. . . . . . . So all the tendencies to sin that
are in the human race came from Adam. But Jesus Christ felt all these
temptations; He was tempted upon all these points in the flesh which He
derived from David, from Abraham, and from Adam. In His genealogy are a
number of characters set forth as they were lived in the men; and they were not
righteous. Manasseh is there, who did worse than any other king ever in
Judah, and caused Judah to do worse than the heathen; Solomon is there,
with the description of his character in the Bible just as it is; David is there;
Rahab is there; Judah is there; Jacob is there, — all are there just as they
were. Now Jesus came according to the flesh at the end of that line of
mankind. And there is such a thing as heredity. . . .
GCB 1895 p. 266, col. 2, p. 267, col. 1
. . . Now that law of heredity reached from Adam to the flesh of Jesus
Christ as certainly as it reaches from Adam to the flesh of any of the rest of us;
for He was one of us. In Him there were things that reached Him from Adam;
in Him there were things that reached Him from David, from Manasseh, from
the genealogy away back from the beginning until His birth.
Thus in the flesh of Jesus Christ, — not in Himself, but in His flesh, —
our flesh which He took in the human nature, — there were just the same
tendencies to sin that are in you and me. . . . And thus being in the
likeness of sinful flesh, He condemned sin in the flesh. . . .
. . . That is simply saying that all the tendencies to sin that are in
human flesh were in His human flesh, and not one of them was ever allowed
to appear; He conquered them all. And in Him we all have victory over them
all. . . .
47
GCB 1895 p. 327, col. 1
Now as to Christ's not having "like passions" with us: In the Scriptures all
the way through He is like us, and with us according to the flesh. He is the
seed of David according to the flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful
flesh. Don't go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the
likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh;
but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus." Therefore it is written: "Let this
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.". . .
GCB 1895 p. 330, col. 1, 2
. . . Jesus Christ came into this flesh Himself, — the glorious One, — He
who made the worlds, the Word of God, — was made flesh Himself, and He was
our flesh; and He, that divine One, who was in heaven, was in our sinful flesh.
Yet that divine One, when in sinful flesh, never manifested a particle of His
divine self in resisting the temptations that were in that flesh, but emptied
Himself. . . .
. . . Jesus Christ, the divine one, the infinite One, came in His divine person
in this same flesh of ours, and never allowed His divine power, His personal
self, to be manifested at all in resisting these temptations and
enticements and drawings of the flesh.
What was it, then, that conquered sin there, and kept Him from sinning? It
was the power of God, the Father, that kept Him. . . .
. . . Christ Himself, who made the worlds, was all the time in that sinful
flesh of mine and yours which He took. . . .
. . . He was our sinful selves in the flesh, and here were all these
tendencies to sin being stirred up in His flesh to get Him to consent to
sin. But He Himself did not keep Himself from sinning. To have done so would
have been Himself manifesting Himself against the power of Satan, and this
would have destroyed the plan of salvation. GCB 1895 p. 349, col. 1
He put off the body of flesh by destroying the enmity in sinful flesh, by
conquering all the tendencies of the sinful flesh. . . . GCB 1895 p. 496, col.
2
Thus the Spirit of inspiration so much desires that this truth shall be made
so plain and emphatic as to be understood by all, that He is not content to use
any fewer than all the words that could be used that just as, and just as
certainly as, "the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself
likewise took part of the same" flesh and blood….
But to be the Redeemer he must be not only able, He must be a blood
relative. And He must also be not only near of kin, but the nearest of kin and
the nearest of kin by blood-relationship. Therefore, "as the children" of man--as
the children of the one who lost our inheritance--"are partakers of flesh and
blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same"--took part of flesh and
blood in very substance like ours and so became our nearest of kin. And
therefore it is written that He and we "are all of one: for which cause He is not
ashamed to call us brethren…."

48
And this He did in order that wherein "He Himself hath suffered being
tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." For He was "touched
with the feeling of our infirmities;" being "in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin." Heb. 4:15. Being made in His human nature in all things like
as we are, He could be and He was tempted in all points like as we are. The
only way in which He could possibly be tempted "like as we are" was to become
"in all things" "like as we are."
As in His human nature He is one of us, and as "Himself took our
infirmities" (Matt. 8:17), He could be "touched with the feeling of our
infirmities." Being in all things made like us, He, when tempted, felt just as we
feel when we are tempted and knows all about it and so can help and save to
the uttermost all who will receive Him. As in His flesh, and [as] Himself in the
flesh, He was as weak as we are and of Himself could "do nothing" (John 5:30);
so when He bore "our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isaiah 53:4) and was
tempted as we are, feeling as we feel, by His divine faith He conquered all by
the power of God which that faith brought Him--in our flesh He has brought to
us. The Consecrated Way

J. H. Starbuck
ST 9/19/95 p. 6, col. 1, 2
In His incarnation He was human in the fullest sense, for He had sinful
flesh, with all its accumulated tendencies to evil. . . .
It is not imputed to us as sin that we are borne (sic) with sinful flesh, or that
we are tempted in that nature, for Christ voluntarily assumed that nature and
was tempted in it, yet without sin. . .
He assumed our sinful flesh, with its inherent sinful tendencies.

ST 9/26/95 p. 6, col. 2
What was the nature of this flesh which He took? . . . He must have had
the same kind of flesh which we have . . . Jesus Christ took "flesh of sin." . . .
Yes, reader, the blessed Son of God . . . took up His abode in flesh with the
same desires that you have in your flesh.
ST 10/10/95 p. 5, col. 2, BV 245 .
. . . None will ever be able to explain how the Son of God could leave heaven
and come to this earth and be born as fallen humanity is born . . . He must
take the same flesh that man had after the fall. . . He took neither the nature
of angels, nor of man before the fall. . . Had He taken the nature of Adam
before the fall, He would not have been under the death sentence which was
passed upon all men. . . .
He did not possess the passions of our fallen natures, caused by being
overcome by sin. But the flesh which He took would soon have possessed
all the passions that sin has brought upon us had He once yielded. He met
the tempter in the weak, sinful flesh, and condemned it so that it was not able
to overcome Him. . . .

49
He took sinful flesh that He might subdue the corruptions of our old
nature.

Stephen Haskell
ST 4/02/96 p. 5, col. 1, BV 280
He did not come to this world and take upon Himself Adam's condition, but
He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is, weakened by sin, polluted
in his own iniquity.
ST 4/09/96 p. 7, col. 3, BV 282
Christ. . . took not upon Himself the nature of angels, or even man as He
was created, but our fallen nature. . . .

Ellen White

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.
Ms. 141, 1901
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 earthy ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our
sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. — DA
p. 49
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. — DA p. 117
Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the
topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If
that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we should
have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature
and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made "in
the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3), He lived a sinless life. – DA p. 311-
312
ST 6/09/98 p. 2, col. 2
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not
in the least participate in its sin.
Ms. 164, 1898 p. 1
50
The Lord Jesus Christ took upon Him the form of sinful man, clothing
His divinity with humanity.
RH 9/20/98 p. 598, col. 2, BV 608
Jesus became . . . bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh . . . He was a
man among men.
The Desire of Ages pp. 174-175
As the image made in the likeness of the destroying serpents was lifted up
for their healing, so One, made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," was to be
their Redeemer. Romans 8:3
Ms. 67, 1898 p. 4
In itself the act of consenting to be a man would be no act of humiliation
were it not for the fact of Christ's exalted pre-existence, and the fallen
condition of man . . . (He) clothed His divinity with humanity that He might
meet man where he was. . . .
Ms. 196, 1899 P-2
He endured every test that man will ever be called upon to endure. He
met all the temptations which man will meet in his life experience.
Ms. 166, 1898 p. 9
To save fallen humanity, the Son of God took humanity upon Him . . . He
consented to an actual union with man . . . Christ did in reality unite the
offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of
condescension, He would be enabled to pour out His blood in behalf of the
fallen race.
ST 5/17/99 p. 322, col. 3, BV 35
He pitied poor sinners so much that He left the courts of heaven and laid
aside His robes of royalty, humiliating Himself to humanity, that He might
become acquainted with the needs of men, and help them to rise above the
degradation of the fall.
ST 7/12/99 p. 453, col. 3, BV 44
. . . He put off His crown, and divested Himself of His royal robe, to take
upon Him human nature, that humanity might touch humanity. As the
world's Redeemer, He passed through all the experiences through which we
must pass. He found Himself in fashion as a man.
YI9/21/99 p. 478, col. 2
Christ took upon Him the form of sinful man,…
ST 6/27/1900 p. 401, col. 3, BV 126
He clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might bear all the infirmities
and endure all the temptations of humanity.
ST 10/17/1900 p. 658, col. 2, 3, BV 153
Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin that
caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He
was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt
principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the
temptations of Satan, He bore the "likeness of sinful flesh."
AR 6/01/1900 p. 3, col. 2, BV 34
51
When Adam's sin plunged the race into hopeless misery, God might have cut
Himself loose from fallen beings. . . . But He did not do this. Instead of
banishing them from His presence, He came still nearer to the fallen race. He
gave His Son to become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. . . . In all the
afflictions of humanity He was afflicted.
He (Christ) assumed human nature, and its infirmities, its liabilities, its
temptations. Ms. 41, 1901 p. 2

G. E. Fifield
GCB 1897 p. 13, col. 1
He took our sinful natures, and our sinful flesh. . . .

H. P. Holser
GCB 1897 p. 55, col. 1
Christ descended even to the lowest depths of human weakness. . . .

Uriah Smith
Looking Unto Jesus (c. 1897) p. 23
In the likeness of sinful flesh, He reached down to the very depths of man's
fallen condition, and became obedient unto death, even the ignominious death
of the cross.
Ibid p. 30
He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to demonstrate before all parties in
the controversy that it was possible for men in the flesh to keep the law. He
demonstrated this by keeping it Himself. On our plane of existence, and in
our nature, He rendered such obedience to every principle and precept, that
the eye of Omniscience itself could detect no flaw therein. His whole life was
but a transcript of that law, in its spiritual nature, and in its holy, just and
good demands. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, by living Himself in
the flesh and doing no sin, showing that it was possible for man thus to live.
Notice how Uriah Smith isn’t as clear on the issue as the rest of the pioneers. I
have yet to find evidence that he took Sr. Whites admonition to stop his opposition
to the position of Jones and Waggoner, much like the many of our own ministers
refuse to do.

M. C. Wilcox
GCB 1897 p. 277, col. 2
That the Son of God should lay aside all His glory and take upon Him the
form of sinful man . . . is a subject worthy of highest study.
ST 1/03/1900 p. 1, col. 2
That body was His body of sinful flesh, taken in the womb of His virgin
mother, and having within itself all the propensities to sin that the flesh
of all the sons of Adam have. He was not only made "in the likeness of sinful
flesh," Rom. 8:3, but He bore the sinful flesh. The likeness was not merely
outward. His flesh was the same as that of all humanity; for He "was made of
52
the seed of David according to the flesh." Every crime in the catalog was
manifest among those through whom Jesus received His heritage of the flesh.
God prepared that body in which He would "in all things" be "like unto His
brethren," of "the seed of Abraham," partaker "of flesh and blood." Heb. 2:14-
17. Have others inherited corrupt tendencies in the flesh? — So did He.
Were the ancestors of others coveting, grasping, adulterous, given to
pleasure? — So were His. He was made like us, that He might make us like
Himself. But, tho (sic) having the flesh, with all its sinful tendencies, He did
not sin. Living faith made dominant the Spirit of God over all fleshly
tendencies.

W. N. Glenn
By His new birth He stepped down to the "likeness of sinful flesh." Romans
8:3
He was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3.
Everybody knows what sins David, His ancestry, and His posterity were guilty
of. Jesus took their flesh with all its heritage. ST 1/17/1900 p. 5, col. 1

Testimonies of Sr. White on the Messages and Messengers of 1888

I have just been listening to a discourse given by Professor Prescott. It was


a most powerful appeal to the people. . . . Maggie Hare is reporting Professor
Prescott's discourses and my talks, for publication. (His) sermons will never
seem the same, I fear, as when given by the living preacher. For the words are
spoken in the demonstration of the Spirit, and with power, his face all
aglow with the sunshine of heaven. The presence of the Lord is in our
meetings day by day.

The Lord has visited Prescott in a special manner and given him a
special message for the people . . . the truth flows forth from him in rich
currents; people say the Bible is now a new revelation to them. Manuscript 47,
1895, 21MR 388.3, 4

Those who since the Minneapolis meeting have had the privilege of listening
to the words spoken by the messengers of God, A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner
and W. W. Prescott . . . Heaven's light has been shining. The trumpet has
given a certain sound . . . Light has been shining upon justification by faith
and the imputed righteousness of Christ. 1888 1455.2

The Lord has sent Prescott, he is no empty vessel, but full of heavenly
treasure. He has presented truths in clear and simple style, rich in
nourishment. 2MR 164.4

W. W. Prescott has been bearing the burning words of truth such as I


have heard from some in 1844; the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is upon
53
him. Prescott has never had such power in preaching the truth. Letter 25,
1895

Prescott has had outpouring of Holy Spirit since coming (sic) here; we
distinguish voice of the true Shepherd. The truth poured forth from his lips
as people never heard it before; people say that that man is inspired. Letter 82,
1895

Prescott has spoken many times at the Armadale campmeeting under


inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The people wanted printed copies of Prescott's messages; they acted like a
flock of half starved sheep, "beg for copy." They want to read and study every
point presented.

Prescott's mind has been fruitful in the truth; may God guide us into all
truth.

Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich., Jan. 7, 1896

In the evening (October 31) Professor Prescott gave a most valuable


lesson, precious as gold. The tent was full, and many stood outside. All
seemed to be fascinated with the word, as he presented the truth in lines so
new to those not of our faith. Truth was separated from error, and made,
by the divine Spirit, to shine like precious jewels. It was shown that
perfect obedience to all the commandments of God is essential for the
salvation of souls. Obedience to the laws of God's kingdom reveals the
divine in the human, sanctifying the character.
The Lord is working in power through His servants who are
proclaiming the truth, and He has given Brother Prescott a special
message for the people. The power and Spirit of the truth come from
human lips in demonstration of the Spirit and power of God. The Lord
has visited Brother Prescott in a most remarkable manner. We are sure
that the Lord has endowed him with His Holy Spirit, and the truth is
flowing forth from Him in rich currents.
We cannot speak of all the meetings particularly, but they have all been
characterized by a spirit of seeking after truth (on part of people).

Ms. 19, 1895 Letter W-25, 1895


Ms. 23, 1895 Letter W-32, 1895
Ms. 47, 1895 Letter W-83, 1895
Ms. 52, 1895 Letter W-84, 1895
Review and Herald, Jan. 6, 1896 (published and released)

54
I believe without a doubt that God has given precious truth at the
right time to Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner. Do I place them as
infallible? Do I say that they will not make a statement or have an idea that
cannot be questioned or that cannot be error? Do I say so? No, I do not say
any such thing. Nor do I say that of any man in the world. But I do say God
has sent light, and do be careful how you treat it. We want the truth as
it is in Jesus. We do not want to go away from the meeting and if there is a
word spoken that we cannot agree with, scatter that where our brethren and
sisters are. No. Go to your knees and pray that we may know what is truth.
And the teachers in the Sabbath School, they need to know there are
minds they are molding; and it is no light matter to stand up before the
pupils and claim that you have light, when perhaps there is dangerous
error mixed in with it. 1888 565.2

It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner may be


overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this
would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work
that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many
would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they
are not under the control of the Spirit of God. They walk in the sparks
of their own kindling, and cannot distinguish between the fire they
have kindled, and the light which God has given, and they walk in
blindness as did the Jews. Letter 24, 1892, p. 5. (To Uriah Smith,
September 19, 1892.) 1MR 143.1

"Las muchas y confusas ideas a propósito de la justicia de Cristo y la


justificación por la fe son el resultado de la posición que usted ha tomado
con respecto al hombre y al mensaje enviado por Dios" (Carta 24, 19
septiembre 1892).
"Dice el frío y formal profesor: 'Eso es hacer a Cristo demasiado semejante
al ser humano'; pero la palabra de Dios nos autoriza a sostener
precisamente esas ideas. Es la falta de esa visión práctica y definida de
Jesús lo que impide que muchos tengan una experiencia genuina en el
conocimiento de nuestro Señor y Salvador Jesucristo. Esa es la razón por la
que muchos temen, dudan y se lamentan. Sus ideas sobre Cristo y el plan
de la salvación son vagas, y confusas" (Youth’s Instructor, 19 julio 1894).

“… Be careful what steps you take in expressing your differences


with your brethren. You cannot tell how it pains me to see some of our
brethren taking a course that I know is not pleasing to God. They are
full of jealousy and evil surmising, and are ever ready to show in just what
way they differ with Elder Jones or Waggoner. The same spirit that was
manifested in the past manifests itself at every opportunity; but this is not
from the impulse of the Spirit of God.
55
I have not received a line from either Elder Jones or Waggoner since I left
Battle Creek. I did not write a line to them until the last mail, when I wrote
to Elder Jones, and a few weeks before sent a letter to Elder Waggoner
concerning the work in England. But I can never forget the experience
which we had in Minneapolis, or the things that were then revealed to
me in regard to the spirit that controlled men, the words spoken, the
actions done in obedience to the powers of evil.”

I have had presentations regarding the deceptions that Satan is


bringing in at this time. I have been instructed that we should make
prominent the testimony of some of the old workers who are now dead.
Let them continue to speak through their articles as found in the early
numbers of our papers. These articles should now be reprinted, that
there may be a living voice from the Lord's witnesses. The history of the
early experiences in the message will be a power to withstand the masterly
ingenuity of Satan's deceptions. This instruction has been repeated recently.
I must present before the people the testimonies of Bible truth, and repeat
the decided messages given years ago. I desire that my sermons given at
camp meetings and in churches may live and do their appointed work.--
Letter 99, 1905.

The proclamation of the first, second, and third angels' messages has
been located by the word of Inspiration. Not a peg or pin is to be removed.
No human authority has any more right to change the location of these
messages than to substitute the New Testament for the Old. --Manuscript
32, 1896 CW 26

The matter that has been brought before the people must be brought
before them over and over again. The articles that are printed in our papers
are soon forgotten by the readers. They must be brought together, reprinted
in book form, and placed before believers and unbelievers.--Letter 71, 1903.
CW 145.4

Christ and His Righteousness.--Christ and His righteousness--let this be our


platform, the very life of our faith.--Review and Herald, Aug. 31, 1905. Ev 190.2
The Third Angel's Message in Verity.-- Several have written to me, inquiring if
the message of justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have
answered, "It is the third angel's message in verity."-- Review and Herald,
April 1, 1890. Ev 190.3
The efficacy of the blood of Christ was to be presented to the people with
freshness and power, that their faith might lay hold upon its merits. . . . Ev
191.2
For years the church has been looking to man, and expecting much from
man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered.
Therefore God gave to His servants a testimony that presented the truth
56
as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel's message, in clear, distinct
lines.--Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91-93. (1896) Ev 191.3

Holy Flesh

In the Holy Flesh Movement there were three related concepts regarding the
kind of sinless nature Christ took in the incarnation:

1. Christ took the nature of Adam before He fell.


2. Christ took a fallen physical and deteriorated human body but not our
fallen spiritual nature. (According to their understanding of spiritual nature,
He received no sinful tendencies.)
3. Christ was preserved from the law of heredity in conception by the power
of the Holy Spirit. (In short, the Immaculate Conception alluded to in # 2.)

Elder Breed and Elder Haskell attended the Muncie, Indiana Camp
Meeting. Haskell discussed the humanity of Christ with the leaders of the
Conference. These men opposed him and misrepresented what he said. Elder
Haskell wrote to Ellen White immediately after the meetings, informing her about
the specific point of the "holy flesh" advocates’ doctrine concerning their belief on
the human nature of Christ and the consequent experience of the Holy Flesh
Movement:

It is the greatest mixture of fanaticism in the truth that I ever have seen. I
would not claim that we managed it the best way in everything, and yet I do
not know where I made any mistake. We tried to do the very best we could,
and had they not talked against us and misrepresented our position, there
would have been no confusion with the people. But when we stated that
we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would
represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact
that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no
one could misunderstand us.

This letter was written September 25, 1900. One week later, on October 2, he
wrote an editorial in the Review and Herald entitled "Christ in Holy Flesh, or A
Holy Christ in Sinful Flesh."

On pages 361, 362 [our present edition 311, 312]:


Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the
topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If
that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching by a single step of reaching
the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He
took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might
overcome. Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ he lived a sinless life. Now by

57
his divinity he lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by his humanity he
reaches us.
This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was
as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift
man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness."
He wrote again quoting Sr. White:
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
earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and
temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."

Two months later A. T. Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review entitled, "The
Faith of Jesus." They began December 11, 1900 and continued until January 29,
1901. (Those articles, and his editorials about Christ’s human nature, became the
basis for his book about Christ in Hebrews: The Consecrated Way). In those
articles, Jones repeatedly dealt with the foundational doctrinal issue of the "holy
flesh" advocates, by presenting Christ as having taken mankind’s fallen nature.
So, both Jones and Haskell addressed the Christological issue raised by Elders
Davis and Donnell of the Indiana Conference.
Donnell, president of the Indiana Conference, countered Jones by writing his own
article entitled "The Faith of Jesus" in the Indiana Reporter. This view was in
opposition to the series written by Jones. Donnell presented Christ with Adam’s
unfallen nature.
He (Jesus) must possess that which He offers us. . . . If Christ proposes to
restore man to his first estate, he must come to man standing in that estate
himself. He must come standing where Adam, the first owner, stood before
he fell"—Article One", p. 4.

The only reason why God does not dwell in man is because sin is there, and in
order for God to again dwell in man sin must be eradicated. The body of Christ
was a body in which God was incarnate, and as God and Satan cannot dwell
together, the body of Christ must have been a body from which even every
tendency to sin must have been wholly eradicated"— "Article Two", p. 6.
Where did Adam stand before his fall?. . . He was holy. Now, in order to pass over
the same ground that Adam passed over, Christ would most assuredly have to
begin just where Adam began! . . . . Now, we know that his divinity was holy, and
if his humanity was holy, then we do know that that thing which was born of the
virgin Mary was in every sense a holy thing, and did not possess the tendency to
sin—R.S. Donnell, "Article Two", pp. 6,7.

After dismissal from his duties as president of the Indiana Conference Donnell
wrote of his belief concerning the human nature of Christ:
58
He took a body which showed by its deteriorated condition, that the effects of
sin was shown by it, but His life proved that there was no sin in it. It was a body
which the Father had prepared for Him. Heb. 10:5. Christ’s body represented a
body redeemed from its fallen spiritual nature, but not from its fallen, or
deteriorated physical nature. It was a body redeemed from sin, and with that body
Christ clothed His divinity.

Elder I. J. Hankins succeeded Elder Donnell to the presidency of the Indiana


Conference. He wrote to S.S. Davis asking him certain questions about his beliefs.
Eight questions were asked. Half of them were concerned with the incarnation.
Following are two of them:
"Question #4: Please state in a few words your views on the nature of
Christ. Answer—‘Luke 1:35 That holy thing.’
"Question #7: Is every child born into the world naturally inclined to evil,
even before it is old enough to discern between good and evil?
Answer—‘Yes, unless preserved from the law of heredity in conception by
the power of the Holy Ghost.’"

It was during the time of the General Conference of April 2-23, 1901, that the Holy
Flesh Movement was dealt a death blow. It was stopped from spreading within
Adventism, at least for the time. But Ellen White wrote to Haskell that the
erroneous theories, methods and experience of the Holy Flesh Movement will
repeat itself again within Adventism.

The things you have described as taking place in Indiana, the Lord has
shown me would take place just before the close of probation. Every
uncouth thing will be demonstrated. There will be shouting, with drums,
music, and dancing. The senses of rational beings will become so confused that
they cannot be trusted to make right decisions. And this is called the moving of
the Holy Spirit. . . .
Last January the Lord showed me that erroneous theories and methods
would be brought into our camp meetings, and that the history of the past
[context: 1844 and 1900] would be repeated. I felt greatly distressed. I was
instructed to say that at these demonstrations demons in the form of men are
present, working with all the ingenuity that Satan can employ to make the
truth disgusting to sensible people; that the enemy was trying to arrange
matters so that the camp meetings, which have been the means of bringing the
truth of the third angel's message before multitudes, should lose their force
and influence. . . .
The third angel's message is to be given in straight lines. It is to be
kept free from every thread of the cheap, miserable inventions of men's
theories, prepared by the father of lies, and disguised as was the brilliant
serpent used by Satan as a medium of deceiving our first parents. Thus Satan
tries to put his stamp upon the work God would have stand forth in purity.
59
During that Conference the two most vocal opponents, publicly, of that
movement were E. J. Waggoner and Ellen White. Waggoner spoke several times.
He addressed the doctrinal issue concerning the nature of Christ. Ellen White also
warned against their teaching and addressed the false experience.
The evening of April 16, E. J. Waggoner spoke pointedly and decisively.
Hebrews 10:4-10 was the text he used. This was one of the key texts used by the
advocates of the Holy Flesh doctrine. Upon reading the text, he said:

After speaking here the last time that I was here, there were two questions
handed me, and I might read them now. One of them is this: "Was that Holy
Thing which was born of the Virgin Mary born in sinful flesh, and did that flesh
have the same evil tendencies to contend with that ours does?". . . .
Before we go on with this text, let me show you what there is in the idea that
is in this question. You have it in mind. Was Christ, that holy thing which was
born of the virgin Mary, born in sinful flesh? Did you ever hear of the Roman
Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception? And do you know what it is?. .
. . The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary, the Mother of
Jesus, was born sinless. Why?—Ostensibly to magnify Jesus; really the work of
the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men
whom He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.
We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome
or not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet. . .
Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours
(because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the
immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary? Mind you, in him was no sin, but
the mystery of God manifest in the flesh, . . . is the perfect manifestation of the
life of God in its spotless purity in the midst of sinful flesh. . . .
Please let everybody who have held a mistaken idea have that idea
obliterated from your mind, just for your own sakes, that you may be saved
from error, and not simply from theoretical error, but from sin. Think of this for
yourselves, that the idea of sinless flesh mankind is the deification of the devil,
because sinlessness belongs only to God, but sin is of the devil. . . . Sinlessness
is an attribute of Deity. Sinless flesh, therefore, would mean that the spirit that
worketh in the children of disobedience, in the lusts of the flesh, is God. But it
is not.

The next day Ellen White presented a testimony concerning the holy flesh
experience and its teaching:
Instruction has been given me in regard to the late experience of brethren in
Indiana and the teaching they have given to the churches. Through this
experience and teaching the enemy has been working to lead souls astray.

It is of special interest to note that Ellen White’s strongest statements on the


human nature of Christ came during the time of the Holy Flesh Movement. She
60
wrote that He took "the offending nature of man, "a nature "degraded and defiled
by sin," "the nature of Adam, the transgressor."

An Offending Nature -- The love of Christ manifested can not be comprehended


by mortal man. It is a mystery too deep for the human mind to fathom. Christ
did in reality unite the offending nature of man with his own sinless nature,
because by this act of condescension he would be enabled to pour out his
blessings in behalf of the fallen race. Thus he has made it possible for us to
partake of his nature. RH, July 17, 1900 par. 8

A Nature Degraded and Defiled by Sin -- Think of Christ’s humiliation. He took


upon Himself, fallen, suffering human nature, degraded, and defiled by sin. He
took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He endured all the temptations
wherewith man is beset. He united humanity with divinity: A divine spirit dwelt
in a temple of flesh. ‘The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,’ because
by so doing He could associate with the sinful, sorrowing sons and daughters
of Adam. (YI Dec. 20, 1900). 4BC 1147.4

The Nature of Adam the Transgressor --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, met in Jesus--
the Son of God, and the Son of man. (MS 141, 1901) 7BC 926.3

Within two years of the Holy Flesh Movement she wrote to Kellogg that Jesus
came "as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir."—
When Christ first announced to the heavenly host His mission and work in
the world, He declared that He was to leave His position of dignity and disguise
His holy mission by assuming the likeness of a man, when in reality He was
the Son of the Infinite God. And when the fulness of time was come, he stepped
down from His throne of highest command, laid aside His royal robe and kingly
crown, clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to this earth to exemplify
what humanity must do and be in order to overcome the enemy and to sit with
the Father upon His throne. Coming, as He did, as a man, with all the evil
tendencies to which man is heir, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted
by human agencies inspired by Satan, to meet and be subjected to, the rebel
who had been expelled from heaven, working in every conceivable manner to
destroy his faith. Letter K-303, 1903
Now, many of our ministers take the position that the term “likeness” means to be
similar to but not in reality. In Rom 8:3 they claim that He took what looked like
our sinful flesh but it wasn’t really our sinful flesh. This would mean that they
also believe that here Sr. White is saying that He wasn’t really a man but merely
appeared to be man; and the same with Phil 2:7. They do this to protect the
sinlessness of Jesus, as if He needed it. They believe that if He were to take real
sinful flesh, He would then be a sinner having received the hereditary tendencies
to sin that the fallen nature engenders.
61
As we have already seen Sr. White was never confused on the issue, as we see
further on in the above paragraph. She plainly states that He came “with all the
evil tendencies to which man is heir,” or inherits. Was she wrong? Or are they
wrong. Their position is a logical position if you begin with the premise of original
sin and the Immaculate Conception.
The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception-- Originally the term "the
Immaculate Conception" refers to Mary’s initial stage of existence in the womb of
her mother and not to Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb. When Mary was
conceived she received by inheritance evil tendencies. But God performed sacred
surgery on her and removed those evil tendencies from her so she would not pass
them on to Christ. At the heart of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception of Mary is an effort to keep His human nature pure, and right, and
loving as the primary consequence of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. All His
inherited tendencies were towards goodness. His unconstrained life was
holiness itself: He was "the holy child Jesus" because of Mary’s sinless human
nature, rather than by His faith in God. The prince of this world found in him no
fuel for the flame which he desired to kindle because of the kind of human nature
inherited from Mary. There was neither inclination, nor tendency in the direction
of sin in Him because of a special miracle that made Mary’s flesh holy. With the
exception of Mary’s mother, doesn’t this sound strangely familiar to the Holy Flesh
movement, Questions on Doctrine, and many of the ministers of the Reform
Movement now? Strange coincident? Or poor study, development, and
interpretation, of the inspired word? I believe it is the second option.
The doctrine of an immaculate conception is based on, or restricted to, theory.
It is neither practical, nor proven, contrary to the position of the pioneers, which
is not only Biblical but in complete harmony with the laws of nature, especially
pertaining to heredity, as we have already seen.
According to this teaching there were no tendencies in Mary towards evil in any
form. In the rest of the human race there are always those tendencies because the
taint of original sin is upon us. Consequently, the babies must receive baptism for
salvation by a priest.
These doctrines, so generally accepted by Christians, indicate how zealously
the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all Churches who follow this doctrine,
has maintained obeisance of these churches in the same way she has with the
Sunday Sabbath. For such dignity and authority belong only to the Church that
alone is the center of these doctrines and of Catholic unity. It is the Church in
which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other
Churches receive the tradition of the Faith.
In the Protestant version of this doctrine, Mary is not the one immaculately
conceived. The reason why Protestants shy away from Mary being immaculately
conceived is the eventual deification of Mary. Thus, they prefer to place the genetic
filter in Mary instead of her mother. In this way Christ is the only one who can be
deified. They also have their reasons for the change of the Sabbath so as not to
give homage to the Catholic Church. But Inspiration and the Catholic Church
aren’t so easily fooled.
62
Such is the catholic doctrine as accepted by many of the ministers of the
SDARM. However Paul had a different take on the same subject. Paul presented
the human nature of Christ as the gospel. The gospel is "concerning His Son
Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh"
(Rom 1:1-3). David’s flesh or nature was sinful (Ps. 51:5). He could only pass on to
his descendants, including Mary, a sinful human nature. The word translated
"seed" is spermatos. David’s DNA— is the nucleic acid in which was encoded the
genetic information which was transmitted to Jesus through Mary. While it is true
that the sequence of nucleotides determined the individual hereditary
characteristics of Jesus from David through Mary, it is also true that those same
nucleotides carried the tendencies of David’s sinful human nature which he in
turn received from his ancestors reaching all the way back to Adam. The
hereditary linkage between Jesus and the rest of the race is the scandal of the
gospel. But in this very scandal is proclaimed the salvation of mankind! This is
what is denied in any form of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, whether it
be Catholic or Protestant.
The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden
chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to
be our study. Christ was a real man; He gave proof of His humility in
becoming a man. Yet He was God in the flesh. When we approach this
subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moses at
the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon
thou standest is holy ground" (Ex. 3:5). We should come to this study with
the humility of a learner, with a contrite heart. And the study of the
incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, which will repay the searcher
who digs deep for hidden truth. 1SM 244 (OHC 48.6)

63