Ok, I figured out what you meant to say. When you said:



What you meant to say was:



This is basically saying what I said in post# 101398:



Shortly after, in #101440, I commented:



It appears to me you are now saying the same thing. You claim to have been saying this all along, but as I've gone back to read the posts, I haven't found you saying this. I've found myself saying this all along, but not you. I can't even find you agreeing with me saying it, let alone saying it yourself.

I don't understand why:

1.You seem to think you understand things much more clearly than Waggoner. I've not even once seen you learn anything from Waggoner. This is too bad. According to Ellen White, he could teach righteousness by faith better than she could, yet you seem not to think he could even teach it as well as you.

2.You say Ellen White, as always, saw this clearly, the implication being that poor Waggoner, again, was confused. Yet she claimed that he could teach righteousness by faith better than her, and said that she would be as a little child, to learn all that she could from him!

3.Ellen White never claimed to be infallible or to have perfect understanding of everything. The way you use her gives the impression that you believe this to be the case.

4.Yet when it comes to Jones and Waggoner, you seem to give little, or no, weight to what she says. Why is her judgment so good only when she is commenting on some text of Scripture, but not when she is commenting on the light and positions which other individuals have?

Going on.

Why are you brining up Gal. 5:1? Here's what Waggoner says about Gal. 5:1

The connection between the fourth and fifth chapters of Galatians is closer than between any other two, so much so that it is difficult to see how anybody could ever have hit upon the idea of making a chapter division. One can not possibly close his reading of the fourth chapter with the thirty-first verse, but must take in the first verse of the fifth chapter, as we have done. But we have not by any means learned all from that verse that we may, and we therefore dwell upon it longer.

The Freedom That Christ Gives.

When Christ was manifest in the flesh, His work was to proclaim "deliverance to the captives," and "to set at liberty them that are bruised." The miracles that He performed were practical illustrations of this work, and one of the most striking may well be considered at this stage of our study.

"And He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in nowise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And He laid His hands on her; and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God." Luke 13:10-13.

Then when the hypocritical ruler of the synagogue complained because Jesus did this miracle on the Sabbath, He referred to how each one would loose his ox or ass from the stall, and lead him to water, and then said:--

"And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?"

Two features in this case are worthy of special note: The woman was bound by Satan, and she had a spirit of infirmity, or absence of strength.

Now note how accurately this describes our condition before we meet Christ.

1. We are bound by Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." "Every one that committeth sin is the bond-servant of sin" (John 8:34), and "he that committeth sin is of the devil" (1Joh.3:8). "His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." Prov.5:22. Sin is the cord with which Satan binds us.

2. We have a spirit of infirmity, and can in nowise lift ourselves up, or free ourselves from the chains that bind us. It was when we were "without strength" that Christ died for us. Rom.5:6. Now these two words, "without strength," are translated from the very same word that is rendered "infirmity" in the account of the woman whom Jesus healed. She was "without strength." To be without strength means to have no strength at all. That is our condition.

What Jesus Does for Us.

What now does Jesus do for us?--He takes the weakness, and gives us in return His strength. "We have not an High Priest which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities." Heb.4:15. "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." Matt.8:17. He becomes all that we are, in order that we may become all that He is. He was "born under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." He hath delivered us from the curse, being made a curse for us, that the blessing might come to us. Although He knew no sin, He was made to be sin for us, "that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 2Cor.5:21.

Why He Does It.

Why did Jesus make that woman free from her infirmity?--In order that she might walk at liberty. Certainly it was not in order that she might continue of her own free will to do that which before she was obliged to do. And why does He make us free from sin?--In order that we may live free from sin. On account of the weakness of our flesh, we are unable to do the righteousness of the law; therefore Christ, who is come in the flesh, and who has power over all flesh, strengthens us with might by His Spirit in the inner man, that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. We can not tell how He does it; He alone knows how it is done, because He alone has the power; but we may know the reality of it.

Present Freedom.

Pay special attention to the words of Jesus to the woman, uttered while she was yet bound down, and unable to lift herself up: "Thou art loosed from thine infirmity." "Thou art loosed," present tense. That is just what He says to us. To every captive He has proclaimed deliverance. The woman "could in nowise lift up herself;" yet at the word of Christ she at once stood erect. She could not do it, yet she did. The things that are impossible for men are possible for God. "The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down." Ps.145:14. Faith does not make facts; it only lays hold of them. There is not a single soul that is bowed down with the weight of sin which Satan hath bound on him, whom Christ does not lift up. Freedom is his; he has only to make use of it. Let the message be sounded far and wide. Let every soul hear it, that Christ has given deliverance to every captive. Thousands will rejoice at the news.

*I* said the carnal law was enmity against God. Over and over I said this. I first made the point on 8/7, over 2 weeks ago, and over a dozen times in posts since then, in virtually every post, seeking to establish this point.

If you had said "I agree with this," then we could talk about the things that were in disagreement, and the conversation would have been much easier. It seemed to me you were disagreeing with this point, which is why I presented so much evidence that this was the case. I cited source after source, multiple translations, presented many arguments, all for the sake of convincing you of something you apparently agreed with all along.

Well, it's not a waste of time, because it's a learning experience, but it's a bit confusing and frustrating! If you would be more forthcoming when you agree with points being made, that would be helpful.

You claim to have been saying all along that the carnal mind is enmity against God, but I reread every post on this thread, and the first time I saw you state this was in post #101803, which was yesterday, something like your 25th post on this thread. It's possible I missed something somewhere, and if that's the point I apologize, but again, if you had simply said somewhere along the line "I agree," that would have made things easier.




I disagreed with the quote you presented from Waggoner.

I agreed with Jones because what he said made sense. Do you agree with what he said?

Actually your sharing what you dug up regarding what Jones said regarding ceremonialism is for me the high point of this thread. Thank you for finding this! I really like the way he used the word "ceremonialism" and this point that he made:



This is a wonderful comment. I think this captures Paul's point, and puts it in language which is easily understood. Also in a way which is applicable to us today.



Ceremonialism. Of course Paul had in mind how the Jews were using the ceremonial law, but I agree with what Jones said, that Paul was concerned with the larger issue of ceremonialism.

Tom,

You are right that it’s generally difficult for me to express my views clearly at the beginning of a discussion; I’m generally able to do it better at the end of the discussion. What I’m disagreeing with all the way along is your idea that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is a parenthetical comment about the enmity (see your post #101518). IOW, what I’m disagreeing with is that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is the enmity. To me, the verse is speaking of two distinct things – the enmity and the law of commandments contained in ordinances.

Your position:
The cross abolished the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances (that you interpret as ceremonialism).

My position:
The cross 1) destroyed the enmity and 2) abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances (that I interpret as the ceremonial law).

That’s why I’ve been quoting the Greek article so many times. I’m opting for this translation of the verse: “. . .having destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely, the enmity; in his flesh having abolished the law of commandments in decrees. . ."

Although they are distinct, the ceremonial law is related to the enmity in that it was used as an excuse for the enmity against the gentiles.

The advantages of this position, in my opinion, are: 1) the ceremonial law is a law – ceremonialism is not a law. 2) the ceremonial law is a handwritten document (Col. 2:14) – ceremonialism cannot be described as such.


Well, my concept of inspiration is simply that when a prophet expresses a view about a point of doctrine, that view is correct.


Because it is the only verse which contains the expression "yoke of bondage."

Interesting. You are defending Waggoner, but while he says that the yoke of bondage is sin, Jones says what I have been saying, that is, that their religion was a yoke of bondage, meaning their laws were a yoke of bondage. Anyway, as I said, this is unrelated to the subject we are discussing, because this expression is found neither in Ephesians nor in Colossians.

Why? Has any prophet every expressed this idea? Specifically, did Ellen White ever say, "When I express a view about a point of doctrine, that view is correct"?

What about views on things which aren't points of doctrine?



I'm sure Jones says the same thing regarding "yoke of bondage" as Waggoner. See if you can find something he wrote on Gal. 5:1, and I'm sure it's the same.

Regarding Jones saying the same thing you are saying, Jones is saying what I said, it looks to me, that ceremonialism is the issue being spoken of in Col. 2:14. Otherwise, how could he make the application to SDA's?

Also, I presented Jones entire argument. He explained what the enmity was, how it caused division, and how peace was acheived. How is his argument any different than what I've been saying? How is it like what you are saying as opposed to what I've been saying?

How would the ceremonial law being aboloshed fit with Jones' argument?



How could it be unrelated? It's the same subject. The same issue is being dealt with in Ephesisans and Colossians and Galatians. It was the issue of the times. What to do with the Gentiles.

The Jews had made a mess of their religion because of their ceremonialism, a result of their carnal mind. The solution was for them, and Gentiles, to come to Christ, who abolished the enmity, the hostility, the carnal mind, in His flesh. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile; in Him they find peace. Paul says this in Galatians, and he says it in Ephesians. The end of Colossians 2 through the beginning of Colossians 3 looks a lot like the end of Gal. 4 to the beginning of Gal. 5.



This is speaking of ceremonialism, to use Jones' word.



The answer to ceremonialism? Christ.

This is how we believe inspiration worked in the Bible:



If this is how inspiration worked in the Bible, we should expect inspiration to work in the same way in post-canonical inspired writings, otherwise I don't think they can be called inspired.

http://www.eternalgospelherald.com/SIG.pdf

I consider pdf a very tiresome format to read, so I haven't read it all. However, Jones evidently refers to the "yoke of bondage" as being the laws (moral and ceremonial) as they were perverted by the Jews. He even quotes the EGW passage which says, "Their religion was a yoke of bondage." He uses these very same words at the beginning of the sermon to which I provided the link previously. In my opinion, this is very different from Waggoner's view which says that the yoke of bondage is "sin."


Please read again what I said. I was speaking very specifically about the "yoke of bondage," which I have been saying repeatedly that it is both the moral and the ceremonial laws as perverted by the Jews. I don't know how this can be equated with "sin," which is Waggoner's position that you have been defending.

Waggoner pointed out that Gal. 5:1 should not be divorced from the end of Gal. 4. In Gal. 4 Waggoner pointed out that the Old Covenant leads to bondage, and spoke of how that worked. In explaining this, he was saying the same thing Jones was saying in what you referenced. The same issues, the same ideas, the same solutions were being discussed by both. If either were present at a sermon of the other, they would said "Amen!." They were preaching the same Gospel.



You don't see how the perversion of the moral law and ceremonial law could be sin? That seems self-evident. How could it not be sin?

We do? On whose authority?



Ok, on the authority of wiki. How about Scripture? Or the Spirit of Prophecy? Here are the questions I asked you:



Has any prophet suggested the approach you are taking?

Here's something I don't understand. If Ellen White says that Waggoner can teach righteousness by faith better than she can, and that she would learn all that she can from him, why wouldn't you think that Waggoner should be, if not preferred, at least not equal to her writings insofar as righteousness by faith is concerned? She said he was given a specific gift for this purpose.

Also I simply can't imagine Ellen White saying, "If I express a point of view on an issue of doctrine, that point of view is correct." This sounds like papal infallibility.

Not on the authority of Wiki. Wiki is merely expressing the view of a large segment of Christianity. And we hold this belief in common with other Christians. This is the Fundamental Belief #1:



If the Bible is not the infallible revelation of God in terms of doctrine, in terms of what is it infallible?



John 10:35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)"

"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (5T 67).

Can the precious rays of light shining from the throne be trusted?