Oh, Tom made a joke? I think I didn't see this; which page?

Check out #112192, Elle. . . Whoops, p. 109.

William

Oooohhhh! Poor Tommy is having a good cry! Don't cry Tom you have a friend. Maybe two

Good one Tom! Thanks for bringing it to my attention Will, I had missed it.

Tom, could you expand what Waggoner or others believe regarding Christ was in the "bosom" of the Father. Like part of the Father's form? Like something Eve was part of Adam, made from his rib?

Would this fact that Christ is "begotten" have anything to do that his divinity powers like Omni presence, omniscience, omnipotent and immortality was able to be taken from Him before the re-incarnation and given back to Him at the ressurection?

Who knew he, too, could tap into the estrogen?!

FYI, yes it was indeed Andreasen who coined the term:

"The term "New Theology" was used by [Pastor] M. L. Andreasen in 1959 in his Letters to the Churches which he wrote in response to the publication of the book Questions on Doctrine in 1957" (Pfandl).

BTW, the approving thumb was for TQ.

William

I mostly agree with this. Actually, I don't see the problem with reading the history of another so much as not reading the original sources. I certainly agree that there can be a wide discrepancy between what someone purports to have been said and what was actually said.

Theresa, since we've been talking about history, here's something I don't understand regarding the prelapsarian position. Supposedly the entire church was postlapsarian, except Ellen White. However, she endorsed postlapsarians, endorsed postlapsarian theology, and never corrected postlapsarians publicly. What I really, really don't understand is the idea that she supposed corrected Baker privately on the same subject she was publicly endorsing postlapsarians on.

Another thing regarding this that doesn't make sense to me is supposedly no one understood her correctly until 40 years after she died, although she was living when discussions on this actual topic were going on! (e.g. the Holy Flesh controversy) If she really agreed with the Holy Flesh people, like Donnel and Davis, that Christ's humanity is as Donnel and Davis said it was (which is the same position prelapsarians today have), I just cannot fathom that nobody during the time would be aware of this. This just boggles the mind.

Let's not worry about what I will attempt to argue. You probably have no idea what that will be, since I have no idea what that will be. But let's look at what you, and Paulson, just said.

There are 3 items in the quote: "indwelling sin," "corrupt principles," or "tendencies to evil." You say that unfallen Adam did not have any of them. I agree.

I say that fallen Adam had all three. Do you agree?

Assuming we agree there, let's consider the claim that "indwelling sin or corrupt principles couldn't have applied to Jesus, but Christ's fallen flesh did possess tendencies to evil." That means that out of the 3 characteristics, Jesus was like unfallen Adam in 2 of them, and like fallen Adam in 1. Do you agree with that?

I don't know. Is it?

Does this quote tell us that Christ's problem was more than just the flesh, but the mind? Did Jesus have the mind of fallen man?