Ok, if he does, he is more wrong than I had thought, for Ellen White clearly confirms that the Jews had transformed it, as well as the moral law, into a yoke of bondage. But the ceremonial law being or not a yoke of bondage is beside the point, since neither Col. 2:14 nor Eph. 2:15 refer to this.

In post #101569 i quoted from Waggoner's article on Eph. 2:15:



This was basically Butler's argument, and Waggoner even cited the same sources Butler would in his pamphlet TLIG. I said:



MMM asked:



I responded:



To which you responded:



Waggoner did argue against the idea, which you appear to be recognizing:



This is quite clever. If Waggoner doesn't argue against the idea, then you would be correct. But if he does argue the idea, what happens? Then Waggoner is "more wrong."

If Waggoner was saying one thing in one place, and disagrees with his own position, then one or the other must be incorrect. So which is more likely? That Waggoner was correct when he was agreeing with Butler, before 1888, before EGW was endorsing him, or later when he disagreed with Butler, passed out his pamphlet to the 1888 GC delegates, and Ellen White started endorsing him?

If EGW is correct in her endorsements, and there is great light in what Waggoner wrote, and he really could teach righteousness by faith better than she could, then the latter must be much more likely.

I understand your point that just because she endorsed him does not mean that every jot and tittle is correct, but surely he must have been right a vast majority of the time, or how could EGW have endorsed him as she did? Over 1,000 times she endorsed him (or Jones). Yet I can't remember when you've agreed with him on anything I've quoted from him during the time EGW was endorsing him, and I've quoted him many, many times on many different subjects.

Let's say he was right 90% of the time (to get the endorsements he did) and I've quoted him 100 times on say 10 different subjects. What are the odds that he's wrong all of these times?



First of all, this does not disagree with what Waggoner or Jones said (from 1888 on). Indeed, if you look at the GC session in 1895 I quoted from, you can see that Jones said this very thing.

Secondly, you correctly point out that they did this, according to EGW, to *both* the ceremonial law and the moral law. Now if their doing this could make the ceremonial law "enmity," then clearly it would make the moral law enmity as well. And if abolishing the ceremonial law is the way to fix the enmity problem, then that logic would apply to the moral law as well.

It was the ceremonial law (circumcision, festival laws, etc.) that was distinctively characteristic of the Jews. It was not the moral law, since even Gentiles have its precepts written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15) and consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).
The perversion of the ceremonial law by the Jews became the main factor of separation between them and the Gentiles.
In this context, Paul writes Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15. God gave the ceremonial laws for a good purpose and they were good, but the Jews' perversion of it caused separation and enmity between them and the gentiles. So, there are two distinct things to be considered here - the law and the enmity.
Before we sidetracked, I had presented the article with an analysis of the Greek text. In it, the author says:



He also said:


And:

Well, she cannot endorse what is in disagreement with what she writes. Therefore, where he disagrees with what she writes he is wrong, and I have always pointed this out.

P.S. To avoid misunderstandings: I hadn't read in detail what Waggoner says, but, according to the quotes you posted, he does argue against the idea of the (ceremonial) law as a yoke of bondage.

Hi Rosangela,

Do you believe that the 10 Commandments are the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ that we are no longer under in Galatians 3?

If so then what difference is there between taking us out from under the moral law of the 10 commandments (Galatians 3) and abolishing the l0 commandments and replacing them with Christ as the ultimate moral influence and standard of righteousness (Colossians 2)?

Why is it so important for you to keep the 10 Commandments in place as our moral influence when we have Christ? Is there something that Jesus didn't teach that they teach? Did Jesus miss something?

scott

Another possibility is that you are wrong, and Waggoner and Ellen White are in agreement. The following situation comes up often:

a.Waggoner writes something unambigous
b.Ellen White writes something ambiguous
c.You take the ambiguous possibility of Ellen White which disagree with Waggoner.

I don't understand why you wouldn't instead choose to use Waggoner as a tie-breaker to decide the ambiguity as opposed to taking the position that Waggoner must be wrong. I could understand this happening rarely, say once in 10 times, but it happens over and over and over again. How could Ellen White endorse Waggoner so strongly and often if Waggoner was so often wrong?



Ok. I'd suggest being more guarded in your responses in this case.

I based myself on the quote you had provided in your post #101569, and in that quote he really doesn't argue clearly against the ceremonial law as a yoke of bondage. I was even trying to defend him. But then, after the other quotes you posted, this became impossible, for I saw he was clearly in contradiction with what Ellen White says.


What Ellen White writes, most of the times, is unambiguous.

I hope you have seen my post just above the one you replied to.

Yes.


Being taken out from under the law (Galatians 3) means being taken out from under its condemnation. In Christ the law can no longer condemn us.

If Eph. 3:15 referred to the abolition of the moral law, it would contradict several other biblical passages. It says: "By abolishing [katargeo] in his flesh the law of commandments in ordinances". Rom. 3:31, on the other hand, says, "Do we, then, abolish [katargeo] the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we uphold the law." Was the law, after all, abolished or not? One verse says it was, the other says it wasn't. However, Ephesians doesn't just say "law," but "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" - a specific law of specific commandments.

What is abolished no longer exists. How can a law that no longer exists be written in the hearts of people (Heb. 8:10)? How can sin be defined as the transgression of a law which no longer exists (1 John 3:4)? How can a law that no longer exists be the standard by which God will judge us on the Day of Judgment (James 2:10-12)?

Either the law was abolished or it wasn't - but it can't be both. Besides, the law is just a transcript of Christ's character. By abolishing it, He would be abolishing Himself.

I agree with this. I would add that the long doesn't condemn us because it is written on our hearts when we become Christ's, which is simply another was of saying that we have been brought into harmony with God.

Also in Gal. 4:4, "under the law," means the same thing (i.e., under its condemnation).

I provided the whole of "The Gospel in Galatians" as a reference. If you are going to say that Waggoner did not argue against a certain position, the implication is that you know what Waggoner was arguing. If you want to limit your statement to a certain quote, you could write something like, "It doesn't appear to me that this quote is arguing against this position" as opposed to "No, he doesn't argue against this idea."



It would be good to defend him when he's right! (this is when he's arguing against Butler, not agreeing with him).



Again, what is more likely.

a.Waggoner's was right before EGW endorsed him, but wrong afterwards.
b.Waggoner's position was wrong before EGW endorsed him, but right afterwards.

Doesn't b make more sense?

To avoid having to type, I'll requote myself:





People do not argue over what Waggoner was saying. At least, if this is done, it is far, far less than with Ellen White.

When we have disagreements about what EGW is saying, it is because what she is saying can be understood in different ways. Take the nature of Christ as an example. Nobody argues that Waggoner wasn't post-lapsarian. But people disagree as to EGW's position.

It seems to me much more likely in these disagreements that you are misunderstanding Ellen White than that Waggoner is wrong. I'm not saying this is always the case, but as a general rule of thumb, common sense would dictate that someone endorsed along the lines of Waggoner is much more likely to be correct than an ordinary lay person. Yet time and time again, rather than modify your own idea, you disagree with Waggoner, which was exactly what happened in the 1888 era, and something of which Ellen White wrote over and over again.

How can it possibly be the case that Ellen White is correct in endorsing Waggoner as she did, and that he is always wrong? At least, he's always wrong in whatever I've quoted from him, because I can't recall you're agreeing with him. Whatever I quote is always that exceptional thing which doesn't fall under the umbrella of her endorsement. Doesn't that seem a bit convenient? Couldn't it be the case that Waggoner was correct, and you're understanding EGW wrong?



It was that post I was replying to.