This makes sense to me:

Considering the fact that Bac's position is well known, even among non-SDA's, what he says is a powerful statement. I'm sure he's discussed this with many Adventist theologians from around the world. If someone held a contrary position (that he didn't keep to himself), surely it would have gotten back to him.

There's no need to be sarcastic. Just please tell me what the record of the penalty of sin is.

I'm reposting what A. T. Jones said. I agree with this...

Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh to God by the blood of Christ. For he who is our peace, who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us — that was between us — having abolished in his flesh the enmity. Thank the Lord. He hath " abolished the enmity" and we can be separated from the world.

" Hath broken down the middle wall of partition between "—whom? Between men and God, surely. How did he do it ? How did he break down the middle wall of partition between us and God?—By " abolishing the enmity." Good.

True, that enmity had worked a division and a separation between men on the earth, between circumcision and uncircumcision; between circumcision according to the flesh, and uncircumcision according to the flesh. It had manifested itself in their divisions, in building up another wall between Jews and entiles; that is true, but if the Jews had been joined to God, and had not been separated from him, would they have ever built up a wall between them and anybody else ? — No, certainly not, but in their separation from God; in their fleshly minds; in the enmity that was in their minds, and the blindness through unbelief, which put the veil upon their heart — all this separated them from God. And thm because of the laws and ceremonies which God had given them, they gave themselves credit for being the ' Lord's and for being so much better than other' people, that they built up a great separating wall and partition between themselves and other people. But where lay the root of the whole thing, as between them and other people even ? — It lay in the enmity And in Christ, God and man met so that they can be one.

All men were separated from God, and in their separation from God, they were separated from one another. True, Christ wants to bring all to one another; he was ushered into the world with " Peace on earth; good will to men." That is his object. But does he spend his time in trying to get these reconciled to one another, and in trying to destroy all these separations between men, and to get them to say, " Oh, well, let all bygones be bygones; now we will bury the hatchet; now we will start out and turn over a new leaf, and we will live better from this time on "

Christ might have done that. If lie had taken that course, there are thousands of people whom he could have persuaded to do that; thousands whom he could persuade to say, " Well, it is too bad that we acted that way toward one another ; it is not right,
and I am sorry for it; and now let us just all leave that behind, and turn over a new leaf, and go on and do better." He could have got people to agree to that. But could they have stuck to it f—No. For the wicked thing is there still that made ike division. What caused the division?—The enmity, their separation from God caused the separation from-one an- other. Then what in the world would have been the use of the Lord himself trying to get men to agree to put away their differences, without going to ' the root of the matter and getting rid of the enmity that caused the separation ? Their separation from God had forced a separation among themselves. And the only way to destroy their separation from one another, was of necessity to destroy their separation from God. And this he did by abolishing the enmity. And we ministers can get a lesson from this, when churches call us to try to settle difficulties. We have nothing at all to do with settling difficulties between men as such. We are to get the difficulty between God and man settled; and when that is done, all other separations will be ended.

It is true, the Jews in their separation from God had built up extra separations between themselves and the Gentiles. It is true that Christ wanted to put all those separations out of the way, and he did do that. .But the only way that he did it, and the only way that he could do it, was to destroy the thing that separated, between them and God. All the separations between them and the Gentiles would be gone, when the separation, the enmity, between them and God was gone.

Enmity that was in them that separated them first from God. And being separated from him, the certain consequence was

" For he is our peace, who hath made both one.'Made both who one? — God and men, certainly. " And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,, . . . for to make in himself of twain [of two] one new man, so making peace." Let us look that over again. " Having abolished in his flesh the enmity." Now omitting the next clause (we are not studying that in this lesson) what did he abolish that enmity for ? What did he break down that middle wall of partition for? Why? "For to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Does Christ make a new man out of a Jew and a Gentile ? — No. Out of a heathen and somebody else? —No. Out of one heathen and another heathen?— No.

God makes one new man out of GOD and A MAN.

The context of what Paul is talking about is what separated the Jews from the Gentiles. What made the Jews believe that the Gentiles were dirty dogs and their enemies? It was the covenant from Sinai. The Gentiles were excluded from the benefits and promises of the covenant. The covenant promises were for the family of Abraham. This had duel effects. First it caused the Jews to believe that they were better than the Gentiles and second it caused hatred between the two groups. This is the cause of the enmity that existed between the two groups.

So, to you, the cheirographon is the record of our sins and the law of commandments contained in ordinances is the OC?

So also, a written record of sin precipitates a written record of its wages. Therefore, taking away the written record of the sin takes away also the written record of the penalty of sin.

the general principle of death for sin constitute a reliable record of who has earn the death penalty.

Regarding Eph. 3:15, I thought we were on the same page on this, and that you agreed with what A. T. Jones said. Am I mistaken?

1. The ceremonial law. When Christ died, He fulfilled the prophetic symbolism of the sacrificial system. Type met antitype, and the ceremonial law came to an end. Centuries earlier Daniel had predicted that the death of the Messiah would "bring an end to sacrifice and offering" (Dan. 9:27; see chapter 4 of this book). When Jesus died, the veil of the temple was supernaturally torn in two from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), indicating the end of the spiritual significance of the Temple services.

Although the ceremonial law filled a vital role before the death of Christ, it was deficient in many ways, being only "a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb. 10:1). It served a temporary purpose and was imposed on God's people until the coming of "the time of reformation" (Heb 9:10; cf. Gal 3:19)—until the time when Christ died as the true Lamb of God.

At the death of Christ the jurisdiction of ceremonial law came to an end. His atoning sacrifice provided forgiveness for all sins. This act "wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Col. 2:14; cf. Deut. 31:26). Then it was no longer necessary to perform the elaborate ceremonies that were not, in any case, able to take away sins or purify the conscience (Heb. 10:4; 9:9, 14). No more worries about the ceremonial laws, with their complex requirements regarding food and drink offerings, celebrations of various festivals (Passover, Pentecost, etc.), new moons, or ceremonial sabbaths (Col. 2:16; cf. Heb. 9:10), which were only a "shadow of things to come" (Col. 2:17).21

With Jesus' death, believers no longer had any need to deal with shadows—reflections of the reality in Christ. Now they could approach the Saviour Himself directly, for the "substance is of Christ" (Col. 2:17).

As interpreted by the Jews, the ceremonial law had become a barrier between them and other nations. It had become a great obstacle to their mission to enlighten the world with the glory of God. Christ's death abolished this "law of commandments contained in ordinances," breaking down "the middle wall of division" between Gentiles and Jews so as to create one new family of believers reconciled into "one body through the cross" (Eph. 2:14-16).

(In fact, regarding Col. 2:14 it seems theirs was an ambiguous position)

As interpreted by the Jews, the ceremonial law had become a barrier between them and other nations. It had become a great obstacle to their mission to enlighten the world with the glory of God. Christ's death abolished this "law of commandments contained in ordinances," breaking down "the middle wall of division" between Gentiles and Jews so as to create one new family of believers reconciled into "one body through the cross" (Eph. 2:14-16).

(btw, Sins[iMax] struck me as funny; i.e. "sins" immediately followed by "iMax." We need "christMin")

I've been asking what the "written record of the penalty of sin" is, and the best I can understand from your answers is that "the wages of sin is death" is the written record of the penalty of sin.

Given this is the case, your statement that "taking away the written record of the sin takes away also the written record of the penalty of sin." is false, because the general principle of death for sin remains. Therefore, using your metaphor, taking away the written record of the sin," does not take away the written record of the penalty of sin. Rather, it just takes away the record of the sin. The death penalty still remains, but it is not applied, because there is no sin to apply it to.