Section 3:

Is the “Baker Letter” Clear?

1. Why did Ellen White write Letter 8, 1895 to Elder Baker of New Zealand? Did she intend to discredit Jones’s and Waggoner’s view of the humanity of Christ (5BC 1128, 1129)?

(a) The letter is not addressed to Jones or Waggoner, nor was it sent to them.

(b) It does not mention Jones’s and Waggoner’s views by name or allude to them.

(c) It does not condemn their views even remotely, only Baker’s distortions of their views.

(d) Had she intended to oppose Jones and Waggoner in their teachings of the nature of Christ, she knew well how to write letters to them. The idea of her attempting to cut them down obliquely via Baker in Tasmania as a beating-around-the-bush kind of rebuke is out of character to anyone who knows Ellen White’s forthright openness.

(e) No one knows (to date) for sure what Baker was teaching that elicited this letter. He, not Jones and Waggoner, was the one teaching or in danger of teaching wrong ideas. He may have been tempted to lapse into an extreme manner of presenting the truth of Christ’s humanity. Inasmuch as Ellen White does not condemn Baker or urge him to leave the ministry but in fact encourages him to clarify his teaching, it is possible that he was overreacting to criticism of the 1888 message and in his youth or inexperience was in danger of muddying the waters by imprecise expressions. It is interesting that she made no move to publish this letter or even to incorporate portions of it in volumes of the Testimonies at the time. If Ellen White had felt that Jones’s and Waggoner’s Christology was faulty or dangerous, she would not have hesitated to publish her letter to Baker in the messages that comprise our volumes of the Testimonies for the Church.

2. If Christ took the sinful nature of man after the Fall, would He he “a man with the propensities of sin” that the Baker letter says we must not present Him as having (5BC 1128)?

In Ellen White’s own context, her use of the term “propensities of sin” means a yielding to temptation, a harboring of an evil purpose, that would be the compulsive result of a previous involvement in an act, word, or thought of sin. She did not teach that we incur guilt genetically.

Jones and Waggoner never implied that Christ had “evil propensities.” Ellen White defines her own terms. We cannot inject into her use of these words our own misconceptions. She said “not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” This language is meaningless unless the phrase “not for one moment” is understood as implying the exercise of personal choice from moment to moment. Such an expression doesn’t make sense if it refers to genetic inheritance. Thus an “evil propensity” is understood as sinful character involving personal choice. In the same letter, her context makes her meaning clear: “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.”

Elsewhere she states that He was tempted by the inclination to disobedience to His Father’s will, but never yielded to it (cf. 7BC 930). In her own use of the term,”an evil propensity” would have been a “passion,” a display of selfishness, a yielding to self, an indulgence of disobedience.

Here is a succinct example of Ellen White’s use of the word “propensities”: “Self-indulgence, self-pleasing, pride, and extravagance must be renounced. We cannot be Christians and gratify these propensities” (R&H, May 16, 1893). When Paul says,”Christ did not please Himself” (Romans 15:3), it is clear that He did not have these “propensities.”

One can quite easily discover Ellen White’s idea of “propensities” by consulting the Index, vol. 2, pages 2157 and 2158 under “Propensity.” Every statement cited can be reasonably understood as consistent with the idea that an “evil” or “sinful propensity” is an indulged lust created by a previous environmental involvement in acts of sin, strengthened by repetition. An alcoholic has a propensity for alcohol because he has used it previously.”Not for one moment was there in [Christ] an evil propensity”—this does not mean He did not “take” our fallen, sinful nature, because those who have the faith of Jesus (within mortal, sinful flesh) “need not retain one sinful propensity.” God’s grace “works in us … to overcome powerful propensities” (7BC 943; COL 354, emphasis supplied). But even after God’s people “overcome” fully, they will still be in “sinful flesh,” with a “sinful nature,” until glorification.

3. Does the 1888 view transgress Ellen White’s counsel in this letter by giving the “slightest impression … that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption” (5BC 1128, 1129)?

No. In fact, Waggoner anticipated this statement, using almost this exact expression of hers seven years before she wrote it to Baker, emphasizing the sinlessness of Christ:

How was it that Christ could be thus “compassed with infirmity” and still know no sin? Some may have thought while reading thus far that we were depreciating the character of Jesus, by bringing Him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the “Divine power” of our blessed Saviour. … His own spotless purity … He retained under the most adverse circumstances. …

There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harbored an evil desire, nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 28, 29).

The verbs Waggoner used were synonyms of Ellen White’s of seven years later: she said “rested” and “yielded,” and he said “harbored” and “waver,” in the same syntax of expression. She said in 1895 that “not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity,” and he wrote in 1889 that “not for a moment” did His “Divine power … waver.” It is almost as if Ellen White were advising Baker that if he stuck to Waggoner’s precise 1889 expressions, he would be safe.

4. Does the 1888 view of Christ’s nature make Him “altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be” (5BC 1128, 1129)?

Ellen White’s expression is clear: she does not object to making Christ “human” per se, for she is not a Docetist. The key thought in this expression of hers is “such an one as ourselves.” Christ was divine as well as “human,” but we are merely “altogether human” and not divine. The context of her statement makes clear that this is her point:

Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the Rock Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity.

Further, we “ourselves” are sinners and Christ was not a sinner; therefore, He cannot be “made altogether human, such an one as ourselves.” This is not to say that since we are sinners by genetic inheritance that Christ was “exempt” from participating in our genetic inheritance as Questions on Doctrine strongly implies (page 383). Neither the Bible nor Ellen White teaches the Augustinian doctrine of “original sin.”

5. How then can we understand the following statement: “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” (5BC 1128, 1129)?

The two key verbs in this expression are: “rested” and “yielded.” Christ’s righteousness is the result of a “verb” and not a mere “noun.” He always did righteousness; and He could not have done righteousness unless he chose to. Adam was created sinless, and if we were to say he was “righteous” in his sinless state (which it seems Ellen White or the Bible never says he was) we would have to imply by that expression that righteousness was innate in him and it was not by choice that he was “sinless.” But the glory of Christ’s righteousness is that it was by choice that He was sinless, and not by an innate, pre-programmed, automaton “nature.”

He explains the truth, telling us that He had taken upon Himself a natural will that was opposed to His Father’s will, and thus He had the same struggle with “self” that we have: “I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me;” “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 5:30; 6:38).”Christ did not please Himself” (Romans 15:3). Therefore His righteousness was the fruit of a constant struggle to yield His will to His Father’s will; and the terrible extent of that struggle is seen in His agony in Gethsemane and on the cross. Ellen White’s expression indicates that “a taint of corruption resting upon Christ” would have been equivalent to His “yielding to corruption.” And that would have been sin. And that He never did, or thought, or purposed, or even fantasized.

6. How could Christ have taken upon Himself the sinful nature of man after the fall, and not have had “a taint of sin?

The word “taint” means a touch or flavor indicating the presence of the tainting article. Spoiled milk has the “taint” of spoilage because the spoilage is there. If Christ had “a taint of sin” or permitted it “for one moment” to “rest upon Him,” He would be a sinner and thus have brought on Himself “the taint of sin.” Jones’s and Waggoner’s message never presented the slightest “taint” of sin or corruption as “resting upon Christ.” But Christ endured the full tempt-ability that the fallen sons of Adam meet, not only the temptability of the sinless, unfallen Adam in the Garden. The glory of “Christ’s righteousness” is that never “for a moment” did He allow a taint of sin to “rest” upon Himself. The cross is the answer.

7. If Christ was “born without a taint of sin” (Letter 97, 1898), was He not different from us who are “born with inherent propensities of disobedience” (5BC 1128)?

Yes, He was surely different from us, for we are fallen sinners and He was sinless. What was “unlike” between us was His character, His righteousness. What is “like” between us is His nature which He “took,” His genetic heredity and ours. We must not misunderstand what are our “inherent propensities of disobedience,” or how we inherit them. Ellen White is very clear that prenatal influences are a part of our “inheritance.” But perhaps there is a difference between “inherent propensities to disobedience” that a baby might “inherit” genetically through the genes, and those that he would “inherit” environmentally from prenatal influences. We dare not say that sin per se is transmitted in the DNA, or we would have to adopt a version of the Roman Catholic Immaculate Conception.

8. If Christ “was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden” (5BC 1128), does this mean that His nature was like that of the sinless Adam?

Not unless we re-write her words and insert “only” where the comma appears. It is true that Christ took Adam’s place, but it is not true that He redeemed only Adam’s failure. He redeemed ours as well. The use of the word “but” in these statements in The Desire of Ages is significant:

Ever since Adam’s sin, the human race had been cut off from direct communion with God. … Now that Jesus had come “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3), the Father Himself spoke. He had before communicated with humanity through Christ; now He communicated with humanity in Christ. [This statement becomes meaningless if one understands that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall.] … Satan had pointed to Adam’s sin as proof that God’s law was unjust, and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam’s failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. … It was not thus with Jesus. … 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 (pp. 116, 117, emphasis original).

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. He came with such a heredity, … to give us the example of a sinless life (ibid., p. 49).

Obviously, according to her emphasis, the fallen “heredity” that Christ “accepted” was not mere physical deterioration, but also “moral.” Her point is that in our nature, which is clearly “sinful” it is possible to live “a sinless life,” for He did so as an “example.” “The lowest depths of degradation” are spiritual and moral, not merely physical. And it was “man” there that Christ “rescued” with that long “golden chain” let down from heaven, in which there is to be no “broken link.”

In no way does this compromise the perfect sinlessness of Christ It enhances it, and gives us hope. This is the “message of Christ’s righteousness.” Ellen White’s language seems clear: “Christ was to redeem Adam’s failure, … but when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. … It was not thus with Jesus.” The great controversy requires that He redeem our failure too!

9. “He [Christ] did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset” (5BC 1128, 1129). Does this suggest that He was born with a different nature than ours, but later in His incarnation, He “humbled Himself” ?

Not necessarily. Christ was born as a human baby and “grew” in knowledge and understanding.”He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (Hebrews 5:8; see also Luke 2:52). As a baby He could not “understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset”—no baby can. He had to grow into this maturity. The point is that at any moment in this growth process, the Son of God could have refused to suffer further, and He could have excused Himself from further participation with us in temptation. But He “humbled Himself” to suffer “the force of all temptations” to the end.

10. How is Ellen White’s The Desire of Ages related to the 1888 concepts of the nature of Christ?

It is very closely related. She wrote it in the decade after 1888. It contains a number of very clear statements which support the Jones and Waggoner concept (cf. pp. 49, 68-70, 112, 117, 208, 329, 336, 363). Very strong statements also appear in YI June 2, Aug. 4, Sept, 8, Oct 13, 1898; ST June 9, 1898; and Letter 97, 1898.

She seems at that time to have been almost obsessed with the parallels between the history of the Jews and our 1888 history. She speaks of this in a series of articles in the R&H from January to April, 1890:

Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. … I feel like fleeing from the place lest I receive the mold of those who cannot candidly investigate … the evidence of a posi-ton that differs from theirs (Feb. 18).

They [brethren] oppose they know not what, because, unfortunately, they are leavened with the spirit of opposition (Feb. 25).

Brethren, there is light for us. … Light is flashing from the throne of God, and what is this for?—It is that a people may be prepared to stand in the day of God. … As I am writing on the “Life of Christ,” I lift up my heart in prayer to God that light may come to His people. … Every line I trace about the condition of the people in the time of Christ, about their attitude toward the Light of the world, in which I see danger that we shall take the same position, I offer up a prayer to God: “O let not this be the condition of thy people. Forbid that thy people shall make this mistake.” … It is when we meet unbelief in those who should be leaders of the people, that our souls are wounded. This … grieves the Spirit of God (March 4).

For some reason, neither the White Estate nor any official publishing house has ever reprinted Ellen White’s powerful “Bible Student’s Library” booklet of 1894 entitled Christ Tempted As We Are. This dates from the same general period as the Baker letter. She clearly supports the 1888 message:

(a) “‘It behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.’”

(b) He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

(c) His temptations were not like Adam’s; “it was not thus with Jesus.” “Alone He was to tread the path of temptation and exercise self-control stronger than hunger, ambition, or death. … Specious reasoning was a temptation to Christ His humanity made it a temptation to Him. … He walked by faith, as we must walk by faith. … One has endured all these temptations before us. … The Christian’s … strongest temptations will come from within. Christ [was] tempted as we are [same page]” (p. 11).

(d) “Every struggle against sin, every effort to conform to the law of God, is Christ working through His appointed agencies upon the human heart”

Ellen White’s mind was not confused on this issue!

Read Section 4