so what would these fleshly desires be? . . . would it be these, since that is all i have ever seen the messenger of the Lord mention?

This is both a true trinitarian position, as well as an antitrinitarian position. One proposes that Christ has been eternally begotten, and still is being begotten, and the other that Christ was begotten at some point in time, once.

But ellen white pointed out that Christ is eternal and self-existent.

He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One and is thus styled in Jer. 23:56, where it is said that the righteous Branch, who shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, shall be known by the name of Jehovah-tsidekenu-THE LORD, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.(Christ And His Righteousness)

W:Paulson explained it thus: indwelling sin or corrupt principles couldn't have applied to Jesus, but Christ's fallen flesh did possess tendencies to evil, otherwise this quotation doesn't present the intended contrast between Christ and Adam.

T:Yes, this is exactly the point. Well put.

t:I see no one wants to explain how they understand that. what the "clamorings of the flesh" are.

Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which 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.’ ST 10-17-00.

this is both a true trinitarian position, as well as an antitrinitarian position. one proposes that Christ has been eternally begotten, and still is being begotten, and the other that Christ was begotten at some point in time, once.

but ellen white pointed out that Christ is eternal and self-existent. she didnt endorse waggoners view of Christ, nor uriah smiths, tho she did endorse smiths daniel and revelation.

Quote: t:This is both a true trinitarian position, as well as an antitrinitarian position. One proposes that Christ has been eternally begotten, and still is being begotten, and the other that Christ was begotten at some point in time, once.


tom: How is Waggoner's position Trinitarian?


Quote: t: But ellen white pointed out that Christ is eternal and self-existent.


tom: Actually Waggoner said Christ is self-existent years before Ellen White did!


Quote:He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One and is thus styled in Jer. 23:56, where it is said that the righteous Branch, who shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, shall be known by the name of Jehovah-tsidekenu-THE LORD, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.(Christ And His Righteousness)


Waggoner often emphasized Christ's divinity. This was essential to his teachings on righteousness by faith. However, the question of Christ's begotteness (if that's the right word) was something he rarely commented on, and not an essential point.

That’s the problem, William. We are discussing statements which refer to the human nature Christ took at birth:

Christ “had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).

There seems to some kind of miscommunication.

Let's put some meat on your quote and see if in an expanded context we can't clear things up:

"Christ. . . had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. . . Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. . . But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man.

"The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan’s temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ’s humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings." 16MR 182-183.

In short, what we now see being discussed is personal choice as opposed to birth nature. Yes?

As you can also see, though our birthright is linked with sinful tendencies, it isn't sinful or requires justification. Only as we choose sin, does the character become corrupt.
Much more can be said, as this is a power-packed quotation. We can pick this up tomorrow if you'd like. Running late.

William

The angels warned them to be on their guard against the devices of Satan, for his efforts to ensnare them would be unwearied. While they were obedient to God the evil one could not harm them; for, if need be, every angel in heaven would be sent to their help. If they steadfastly repelled his first insinuations, they would be as secure as the heavenly messengers. But should they once yield to temptation, their nature would become so depraved that in themselves they would have no power and no disposition to resist Satan. {PP 53.2}

Adam could neither deny nor excuse his sin; but instead of manifesting penitence, he endeavored to cast the blame upon his wife, and thus upon God Himself: "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." He who, from love to Eve, had deliberately chosen to forfeit the approval of God, his home in Paradise, and an eternal life of joy, could now, after his fall, endeavor to make his companion, and even the Creator Himself, responsible for the transgression. So terrible is the power of sin. {PP 57.5}

When the woman was asked, "What is this that thou hast done?" she answered, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." "Why didst Thou create the serpent? Why didst Thou suffer him to enter Eden?"--these were the questions implied in her excuse for her sin. Thus, like Adam, she charged God with the responsibility of their fall. The spirit of self-justification originated in the father of lies; it was indulged by our first parents as soon as they yielded to the influence of Satan, and has been exhibited by all the sons and daughters of Adam. Instead of humbly confessing their sins, they try to shield themselves by casting the blame upon others, upon circumstances, or upon God--making even His blessings an occasion of murmuring against Him. {PP 58.1}

After their sin Adam and Eve were no longer to dwell in Eden. They earnestly entreated that they might remain in the home of their innocence and joy. They confessed that they had forfeited all right to that happy abode, but pledged themselves for the future to yield strict obedience to God. But they were told that their nature had become depraved by sin; they had lessened their strength to resist evil and had opened the way for Satan to gain more ready access to them. In their innocence they had yielded to temptation; and now, in a state of conscious guilt, they would have less power to maintain their integrity. {PP 61.4}

Man had become so degraded by sin that it was impossible for him, in himself, to come into harmony with Him whose nature is purity and goodness. But Christ, after having redeemed man from the condemnation of the law, could impart divine power to unite with human effort. Thus by repentance toward God and faith in Christ the fallen children of Adam might once more become "sons of God." 1 John 3:2. {PP 64.1}

Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he was a son of Adam like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin; but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing his will. He separated himself from the corrupt descendants of Cain, and labored, as Abel would have done had he lived, to turn the minds of sinful men to revere and obey God. {1SP 60.2}

You're not being very clear. Miscommunication about what?

Waggoner is talking about Christ's being begotten, which he relates to the time Christ proceeded from the Father, which he relates to Provers 8. I think Waggoner is correct about this. This doesn't say anything about Christ's having a beginning, but about Christ's being begotten.

Before anything was created, there was just the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without any creation (i.e., nothing had been created) Christ could remain in the "bosom of the Father." However, once the decision was made to create, it was necessary that there be a representative, and Christ was designated as that representative. So Christ proceeded from the Father, or was "begotten."

R: It seems your memory is a little faulty.
T: No, it wasn't. Here's the part I was referencing:

I remember you're disagreeing with me regarding probability, asserting that is isn't true that the probability of the occurrence of an event can be expressed as a fraction or a decimal from 0 to 1.

Christ took "out sinful nature." Therefore the nature He took is like ours, since it is ours.