What you are saying is that the perversion of the moral law and the ceremonial law (self-righteousness) is all that is comprised by the word sin, for "sin" was used by Waggoner in the absolute (not qualified) meaning of the term.

Fundamental beliefs #1 is simply quoting from Ellen White, which is fine. But fundamental beliefs #1 is not addressing what I asked.

The other quote doesn't either.

Here's something from the J&W days



I agree completely that Ellen White did not express "merely her own ideas." I have no doubt that God communicated truths to her in visions and dreams. However, how does that equate to "If I express an opinion on a point of doctrine, that opinion must be correct."

I don't see her ever saying that.

Also, how does this differ from the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility?

Also, why limit her to opinions regarding points of doctrine? Her testimonies cover a great deal more than simply points of doctrine. (e.g., they refer to those whom God used to bring us light on righteousness by faith)





I'm with her. (I'm sure you are too; You've written some nice posts expressing the same sentiment).

Anyway, back to Col. 2, she used this text to make an argument regarding the ceremonial law being done away with at the cross. Everyone agrees that this happened, and no one here is arguing that the moral law was done away with (in the sense of not needing to keep it; Scott has argued that it's been superseded in terms of a revelation of God's will or character by Christ).

I see that Ellen White used Paul's words to make an argument, not that she was offering an exegesis of the passage in question.

Sorry to make this a long post, but let's try focusing on something we agree on, and see if we can end this post on a positive note. Do we both agree with A. T. Jone's explanation of Eph. 2?

The new covenant, which was way easier to implement and practice, should have been sufficient; but the Jews were ignorant, forgetful, self-serving, and sinned hardened. Thus, God was forced to initiate the old covenant in order to help them understand and appreciate the new covenant. Many of the requirements under the OC were burdensome, but necessary. They were specifically designed to prevent the Jews from forgetting the truth or from twisting it to serve sin. "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Sister White describes it below:

PP 310
The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. These laws were called judgments, both because they were framed in infinite wisdom and equity and because the magistrates were to give judgment according to them. Unlike the Ten Commandments, they were delivered privately to Moses, who was to communicate them to the people. {PP 310.1}

PP 371 372
Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice.... {PP 371.1}

But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant.... {PP 371.2}

.... They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant [the OC] which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises" -- the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}

I think Tom's point in his last post is right on! The opposition to J&W at the 1888 GC was that they were taking the popular position that the law was done away with therefore we no longer need to keep it!

That is not what they ever taught, but a ploy of God's enemies to shroud the truth they were attempting to teach in darkness to get people to reject it. Guilt by association! (Nor is it what I or Tom have ever suggested, but that is what keeps coming up over and over. Build a straw man and tear him down!)

What they taught is that any system that teaches that we can do anything to secure our salvation is a false system and that includes law keeping. It is, in fact, the system of the anti-Christ.

It seems to me that there are those, still today, using these same tactics whenever this subject comes up. Associate my words to the evangelicals "cheap grace" and get readers to throw the baby out with the bath water. The bottom line is that the NT teaches that the 10 Commandments and all the laws associated with it were part of a system of worship that was intended to show us sin and then demonstrate salvation through types and shadows. Once Christ came that system became obsolete and, as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, is became unemployed, gone, fired, dismissed, ready to pass away, nailed to the cross, however you want to say it.

We are not saved nor kept righteous by any law. We are saved and kept righteous by faith in the love of God that Jesus revealed. That glorious truth about His Father, so well displayed in Jesus' life and death, makes other attempts to reveal His character, through past laws and ceremonies, pale in comparison.

Everyone here would agree that we are not saved by Sabbath keeping, but name me one person who can keep the Sabbath without being saved by faith in Jesus! So what saved us? The commandments? No! Never! But a revelation of God's love that we find in the Savior is the power of God to salvation. We call it "The Gospel".

So you guys can keep talking about the law until you wear out the saints, but remember that the law is powerless to save anyone. The best it can do is leading us to Christ for salvation. Eventually everyone who is saved comes to know God through Jesus because knowing God is eternal life and that life is in the Son.

I'm going to talk about Jesus!

scott

Actually your view goes much farther than that. I hear you suggesting that once inspiration has expressed a view it is the end of discussion, the fullness of truth with nothing more to learn.

Paul presents truth like looking in a prism where we catch a glimpse of one color, but there are millions yet to see in order to have a full picture. He calls it “the manifold wisdom of God”, the many folds or parts of a whole. He even presents the prophets as seeing only partial truths that were never understood until Christ came.

To apply what Paul is saying would mean that once something was revealed though inspiration it would be the beginning of the discussion rather than the end. This new beam of light would change our perspective of all other revealed truths as it lit them with its glory, but soon to be understood even better as another beam is added.

scott

I was trying to think of a way of expressing this same thought, but couldn't think of anything, so kept silent. But this is expressing how I see things as well. It seems to me that thinking of a prophet as communicating things as merely, or principally, "right" or "wrong" is thinking in a wrong paradigm. It would be like calling the colors of the prism "right" or "wrong."

God truly communicated to the prophets, whether Ellen White or others, and they faithfully communicated what they received from God. However how they perceived what was communicated, and how they communicated it, is influenced by their culture, their language, their understanding and experience. They were dealing with the truth of God, which is infinite. What we can expect, to use Scott's metaphor, is some insight regarding the prism.

Ellen White is careful to bring out that neither the words of God nor the logic of God is given to us in Scripture.



It's interesting that she would use this expression, in her last sentence, because God has put Himself on trial in the Bible. Not in words, logic, or rhetoric, but in Christ.

While I'm veering away from the current discussion, this quote addresses the original topic nicely. I'd like to use this to guage where everyone is.


Does everyone here agree with this quote?

I interpret it to mean that the types which pointed to Christ's sacrifice were done away with at His death, but the precepts of the 10C are unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, they were not abolished. Does everyone agree with my interpretation?

Going further, this does not say what should be done with types that pointed to things other than Christ's sacrifice. So for those, I would say that they were not done away by Christ's death. WDYT?

Are you saying that the judgments and statutes were part of the OC?

Pretty much, but I would add that the principles of the types were also not done away with, just the ceremonies.



I see no distinction. That is, I don't think we need to keep any of the ceremonial law, including the things pointing to other aspects of Christ's ministry besides His death. For example, I don't think there was any need for Christians to keep the Day of Atonement until 10/22/1844.

I'm wondering where this idea comes from. David said:



I think Waggoner makes a good point.

I guess I should add that I assume that by this:



what you really mean is the Ceremonial law. I'm guessing this because you said, "which God initiated." If you're talking about the true OC, which God did not initiate but man, then this truly was a burden, not just "many of the requirements" but from beginning to end.



The OC holds in bondage all who are in it, whether in the past or today.