Greg, I am less than the least of all men. I am! And I am merely repeating their very own words! Long ago, I determined that by the grace of God I would not get up a message of my own but that I would study the heaven-sent message brought by God's chosen messengers.

I was motivated to do this because of reading statements like these, from the prophet:

"But not all are following the light. Some are moving away from the safe path, which at every step is a path of humility. God has committed to His servants (Jones and Waggoner) a message for this time; but this message does not in every particular coincide with the ideas of all the leading men, and some criticize the words of reproof sent to them of God through His Holy Spirit. What reserve power has the Lord with which to reach those who have cast aside His warnings and reproofs, and have accredited the Testimonies of the Spirit of God to no higher source than human wisdom...

"I would not now rehearse before you the evidences given in the past two years of the dealings of God by His chosen servants; but the present evidence of His working is revealed to you, and you are now under obligation to believe. You cannot neglect God's messages of warning, and cannot reject them or treat them lightly, but at the peril of infinite loss." T.M.465,466.

Greg, the reason why I feel strongly is because the message brought by these two brethren was the latter rain message, the beginning of the loud cry message! The people were admonished by the prophet to receive the message just as God gave it, as He spoke it through His messengers! It was the only way for the message to be received according to righteousness, that is, according to God's own idea of it, as He spoke it!

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

So I assume you understand their message and are in the process of attempting to share it with us. Is that true? Then can you make it any simpler yet so that we can get it?

Greg: do I detect a bit of sarcasm in this last post of yours? If not, forgive me! But I need to know! Thanks.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

Being human all kinds of things can slip through. It was not my intent to be sarcastic. I don't grasp all the thinks Jones was trying to get across, so if you have it we need it. I personally believe in II Corinthians 5:20.

Greg, sinnce you have asked me to make it plainer, simpler, again I will quote the words of Elder Waggoner. The meaning of his words could not be any clearer:

Commentary on Romans 7:

"We do great violence to the apostle Paul, that holy man, when we say that in this he is relating his own Christian experience. He is not writing his own experience now that he is united to Christ. He is writing the experience of those who serve, but in the oldness of the letter, and while professedly serving God, are carnal, and sold under sin.

A person sold under bondage is a slave. What is the evidence of this slavery? 'For what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I... For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do.'

Have we ever had any such experience as that in our so-called Christian experience? Yes; we have fought, but with all our fighting, did we keep the law? No, we have made a failure, and it is written upon every page of our lives. It is constant service, but at the same time it is a constant failure.

I fail, I make a new resolution,--I break it, and then I get discouraged, then make another resolution, and break that again. We cannot make ourselves do the thing we want to do by making a resolution. We do not want to sin, but we do sin all the time. We make up our minds we will not fall under that temptation again, and we don't--till the next time it comes up, and then we fall as before.

When in this condition, can we say that we have hope, and that we 'rejoice in hope of the glory of God?' We do not hear such testimonies,--it is solely of what we want to do, and what we have failed to do, but intend to do in the future. If a person has the law before him, and acknowledges that it is good, and yet does not keep its precepts, is his sin any less in the sight of God than the sin of the man who cares nothing for the law? No.

What is the difference between the would-be Christian (the man of Rom.7), who knows the law, but does not keep it, and the worldling who does not keep the law, and does not acknowledge that it is good? Simply this: We are unwilling slaves, and they are willing slaves. We are all the time distracted and sorrowful, and getting nothing out of life at all, while the worldling does not worry himself in the least.

If one is going to sin, is it not better to be the worldling who does not know that there is such a thing as liberty, than to be the man who knows that there is liberty, but cannot get it? If it has got to be slavery, if we must live in the sins of the world, then it is better to be in the world, partaking of its pleasures, than to be in a miserable bondage, and have no hope of a life to come.

But thanks be unto God, we can have liberty. When life becomes unbearable because of the bondage of sin, then it is that we may hope, for that leads to the question, 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?' Mark, there is deliverance, 'I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.'" E.J. Waggoner, Studies in the Book of Romans, p.53,54.

This is exactly what Elder Jones taught at the 1893 General Conference on Romans 7/lecture # 12.
These messages should settle, once and for all, whether the experience described in the seventh of Romans is that of a would-be Christian or not!

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

Well then the next question is how do we get it, the Romans 8 experience? It seems to me that there is much talk about it but little change. I have plenty of failures and I want to have victory and always.

Greg, please allow me to answer you from one who had deep insights and enormous appreciation and gratitude for the great sacrifice that was made for fallen man:

"Unless he makes it his lifebusiness to behold the uplifted Savior and accept His merits, which it is his privilege to claim, the sinner can no more be saved than Peter could walk upon the water unless he kept his eyes fixed steadily upon Jesus." T.M.95.

"Present your case before God pleading the merits of the blood that was shed for you upon Calvary's cross." Say, "Lord, I have no merit or goodness in myself whereby I may claim salvation, but I present before you the all-atoning blood of the spotless Lamb of God. This is my only plea." F.W.106.

"We must daily apply to the merits of the blood of a crucified and risen Savior that we may become vessels fit for the Master's use." Ibid, 86.

"Through the virtue of the merits of the blood of Christ we may stand unscathed amid the fire of temptation and trial." Ibid, 87.

Therefore, "The only faith that will benefit us is that which appropriates the merits of His shed blood to ourselves." Our Father Cares, p.192.

Greg, have you ever read these words:

"Justice demanded the sufferings of man; but Christ rendered the sufferings of a God. He needed no atonement of suffering for Himself; all His sufferings were for us; all His merits and holiness were open to fallen man, presented as a gift." 7 B.C.913.

"Christ places His own merits upon man and thus elevates him in the scales of moral value with God." Our Fathe Cares, p.121.

In other words, "Jesus was treated as we deserve that we might be treated as He deserves." D.A.25.

As we appropriates His merits to ourselves, the Father loves us as He loves His only begotten Son! There is an awful amount of saving truth here!

What do you think? Are not the merits of His sacrifice sufficient to present to the Father in order to obtain pardon, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit?

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

AB, I agree with Waggoners basic premise, that is, good intentions are worse than no intentions at all. It is better to believe and behave like Jesus than to believe and tremble like the devils.

And yes, it is quite clear what Waggoner believed about the man of Romans 7. It's easier for me to read his transcripts than to read Jones'. From what you've quoted, I can see they believed that the man of Romans 7 is an unconverted Jew who is attempting to obey the law in their own way.

But... what I'm not so clear on is the idea that Ellen White specifically endorsed their thoughts on Romans 7. I suspect she gave a general endorsement to their main point - righteousness by faith. I think it's stretching her generalized commendation by making it say that she endorsed every single thing they ever taught.

I believe from the points that have been shared throughout this thread it is obvious what Paul is trying to teach us in Romans 6-8. The willingness to obey the law without the ability to perform it is a problem we'll have our entire life, whether we are an unconverted Jew or Gentile or even a converted Christian. Only Jesus can empower us to unite both the desire and the ability to obey.

In verse 17 Paul transitions from the past to the present, from then to now. Says Paul - "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." As a born again believer he is now conscious not to make the same frustrating mistakes he made before "the commandment came" and he "died." Verse 9.

What do you think?

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]

Waggoner wrote: "We do great violence to the apostle Paul, that holy man, when we say that in this he is relating his own Christian experience. He is not writing his own experience now that he is united to Christ. He is writing the experience of those who serve, but in the oldness of the letter, and while professedly serving God, are carnal, and sold under sin." E.G. Waggoner

Mike: At the beginning of your last post, you state that you agree with Waggoner that Paul in Romans 7 is not writing his own experience now that he is united to Christ. And then you turn around and declare that in verse 17 and 18 Paul is writing of his experience now that he is united to Christ!

And then you ask me what I think? I think that it is plain enough that you are contradicting yourself and once again doing violence, not only to the apostle Paul, but to Waggoner as well!

You say: In verse 17 Paul transitions from the past to the present, from then to now." Who says that? Who says that that is what Paul is doing? How could that be in the light of verses 18 and 19?

Ironically, verses 17 to 19 are the strongest proofs from Romans 7, and argued by both Jones and Waggoner as to show that Paul is writing of the bondage to the oldness of the letter.

The born again Christian overcomes the sin that dwelleth in his flesh. He serves the law of God not only with the mind but with his whole being. His confession is: It is not I that doeth it, the good, but it is Christ that dwelleth in me!

Whereas the confession of the man of Romans 7 is quite different: He says: It is not I that doeth it, the evil, but it is sin that dwelleth in me!

What do you think?

P.S. You also stated that you are not sure that Ellen White gave her full endorsement to Jones and Waggoner. On what basis? On the contrary. She said that we could hear the echo of the voice of Christ through them and that they had been with Jesus. She said that they spoke in demonstration of the Spirit and in clear and unmistakable, distinct lines!

At one time, in 1896, she wrote: "How long will you hate and despise the messengers of God's righteousness? God has given them His message. They bear the word of the Lord." T.M.96.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]

AB, I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I totally agree with everything Waggoner and Jones wrote and spoke about the man of Romans 7. I meant to say that I agree with their basic premise - i.e., good intentions are not good enough to empower us to obey the law apart from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

What I'm not as convinced about is how they use Romans 7 to establish their premise. I can see their point in verses 4 thru 16, though in verse 6 Paul is talking about now. I find it inconceivable that Paul, that great preacher of righteousness, would pen something that blames sin on SIN. Thus verses 17 and 20 cannot possibly be interpreted to mean - When I sin it is no more I that do it but the sin that dwelleth in my flesh is to be held accountable.

Just like the word now in verses 17 and 20 the phrase no more in the same verses make it clear to me that Paul is contrasting the past and the present, then and now. To paraphrase the meaning of his words I would suggest something like the following:

----------------------------------------------

I was "once alive without the law" and I was "deceived" into believing that I was "blameless, touching the righteousness which is in the law." But when I finally understood the truth about righteousness by faith, my "old man was crucified" with Jesus. "When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" to self.

But my "sinful flesh" nature still communicates to my new man mind all kinds of unholy thoughts and feelings. "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." But "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God."

Ever since my conversion, I now realize that I am no longer the one responsible for the initial existence of these ungodly suggestions. "Now it is no more I that do it, but sin dwelleth in my flesh." Jesus daily "delivers" me from the clamorings of my flesh. Someday the Lord will return and totally deliver me from the "body of this death" by rewarding me with a sinless flesh body.

And even though my flesh lusts after the law of sin and death, Jesus now empowers me to serve the law of life and liberty with my new man mind. I keep my fleshly desires under "subjection", under the control of a sanctified mind. And now I use my faculties of mind and body to honor and glorify God and Saviour.

-----------------------------------------------

Finally, I'm also sorry that I left you with the impression that I believe born again believers serve God with their mind only and not with their body too. Please believe me, I really do believe that Jesus empowers genuinely converted Christians, who walk in the Spirit, to serve Him with all their mind, body, spirit and soul.

Also, I realize that you are worried about the status of my salvation since I have made it clear that I do not agree with how Jones and Waggoner interpret and apply Romans 7. I understand that you believe I am rejecting Jesus' appointed and anointed interpreters of Romans 7. And I appreciate your loving concern. Thank you. I wish I could somehow reassure you and eliminate these fears, but all I can say is that in my mind and heart I believe Jesus is saving me still.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]