At this point in our discussion, there may be questions beginning to form in the mind of the student. Why is so much attention being given to the use of the terms passions and propensities in the writings of Ellen White? And why is our next section divided in terms of its relation to something called the Baker Letter?
The answer is simple, yet mind-boggling. A personal and private letter was written near the end of the year 1895 (some say early 1896) from Ellen White, who was in Australia, to a young pastor in Tasmania, (an island to the south of Australia) whose name was W. L. H. Baker. In this letter Ellen White wrote of Christ:
He could have sinned, He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.
This letter has been seized upon by certain interpreters of Ellen White's writings, and used as the guiding principle (as interpreted) to which all of her other Christological statements, in books, magazine articles, or other private letters must be subordinated.
The steps in logic being followed by her interpreters seem to be these:
1. Ellen White wrote to Baker that Christ did not have an evil propensity.
2. By this she really meant to say that Christ did not have natural propensities, such as fallen men have.
3. If He did not have the natural propensities that fallen men have, it follows that He could not have had the same human nature that fallen men have.
4. Therefore, Ellen White was actually trying to say to Baker that Christ had come to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.
Having established this to their satisfaction, from their interpretation of her letter, they do not permit themselves to be disturbed by the fact that Ellen White nowhere wrote that Christ came to the earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam, nor yet by the fact that she often wrote that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man. We must remember that Ellen White had no formal education beyond the third grade, and no theological training at all, they seem to be saying. We should not, therefore, expect too much of her, but we should generously assist her to say what we realize that she really meant to say, but somehow was not able to express correctly in her own words, they imply.
As her interpreters they generously assist her by explaining to the world that when she wrote that Christ endured the same temptations that Adam endured, she really meant to say that Christ had the same human nature that the unfallen Adam had; that when she wrote of the sinlessness of the human nature of Christ, she really meant to say sinless human nature of Christ; that when she wrote that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of fallen man she really meant to say that only His physical nature was like that of fallen man; and that when she wrote that Christ took upon Himself all of the infirmities, all of the liabilities, all of the weaknesses and all of the susceptibilities of fallen human nature she really meant to say that He did this vicariously, but not actually. They remind their readers often that Christ's incarnation is a great mystery.
Having thus generously assisted her to say what they must have thought she meant to say but seemingly could not find the words to express correctly, they, her interpreters, can now fervently applaud the remarkable wisdom of her intentions, in expressions like these:
"Sublime in scope ... penetration, comprehensiveness, balance, dependability. No other writer in our ranks has ever approached it in coverage. ... Her declarations are refreshingly clear. ... Nothing to be ashamed of, everything to be proud of ... priceless ... remarkable ... terse ... comprehensive," etc., etc.[1]
We may be pardoned for wondering who most fully deserves these accolades of praise: Ellen White, who apparently was not able to say what she wanted to say, or her interpreters, who so generously assisted her. Whether her interpreters are actually applauding Ellen White or applauding themselves would seem to be a fair question.
It will be necessary, therefore, for us to move forward in our investigation while holding certain questions in our minds:
Might it be possible, after all, that Ellen White meant what she wrote and wrote what she meant?
Do we find any statement, in her own words, that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam? If not, how can we be sure that this is what she actually believed?
Do we find any statement, in her own words, that Christ assumed only the physical nature of fallen man in His incarnation?
Do we find in her own words any statement that Christ assumed the weaknesses, liabilities, and susceptibilities of fallen human nature vicariously, but not actually?
Do we find any corrective letters written by Ellen White to the many prominent church leaders who were teaching that Christ had come to the earth in the nature of fallen man? Why would she correct Baker and not correct the others?
Do we find any change between the earlier and later statements of Ellen White regarding the humanity of Jesus?
Do we find any other area in which Ellen White so desperately needed the assistance of interpreters in order to say what she was trying to say?
With these questions in mind, let us turn to the records of history.
Note: