"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

p:Robert, think of it this way. If you don't love God or the principles of His government (aka agape), you wouldn't be happy in heaven.

R:So you never think of self?

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

I hear you saying David was culpable but Jesus isn't because sinners "cause" Him to withdraw His protection.

This is close. Jesus isn't because sinners cause Him to withdraw His protection. (I don't know why you put "cause" in quotes. That makes it sound like you don't believe this is true, seems like).

Quote:

One escapes culpability if he is forced to withdraw protection.

Yes, of course. Common sense.

Quote:

Obviously this idea assumes Jesus has never directly caused sinners to suffer and die. Otherwise, it wouldn't explain culpability in cases where Jesus Himself causes sinners to suffer and die. Or, would you argue the same logic, that is, Jesus isn't culpable because sinners force Him to kill them?

Jesus doesn't kill anyone. He doesn't Himself cause sinners to suffer and die.

It sounds like you believe Jesus says, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you." And that under such circumstances Jesus is not culpable.

[Archie777]

A: Ellen wrote: Under the new covenant, perfect obedience is the condition of life. {AG 138.4} Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience. {AG 136.6}

P: This can be easily misunderstood.

A: Do you agree Jesus required perfect obedience under both the NC and the OC?

P: Not as an arbitrary requirement. I wrote a couple of posts dealing with GC 541-543. I think He did so along the lines that I explained in these posts.

[Robert]

I really don't see how your response relates to what I wrote.

Do I love agape? Yes, "but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members."

In other words, "He who says, “I am holy, I am sinless,” is self-deceived. ....Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption."

So again, I agree believers are growing in grace, which proves their faith, but to say Christian are living Christ's life (hence, a commandment keeper) is a lie...it is self-deception.

Does EGW agree?

"The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary; but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled [with the principle of self] that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God."

What is this defilement? "The selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life." Hence, "Manhood, with its full, perfect, glorious development, will come, when, freed from the taint of sin [the principle of self], we stand among the redeemed throng. Then [not now] we shall enjoy a life which measures with the life of God."

[John317]

Quote:

RobertPC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 10-17-07

AT- The Two Covenants

PR- 08

It is from the EGW CD from the White Estate....I think you guys are just stalling for time....

No stalling at all. Just saying it would be good if you would give references so people can look them up in books. I don't have the CD. Doesn't the CD show the title of the Book and the page number? Or if it gives RH, doesn't it give a date and page number?

[John317]

Quote:

Robert:

In other words, "He who says, “I am holy, I am sinless,” is self-deceived. ....Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption."

Do you abhore yourself, Robert? That means you reject yourself vehemently, with horror and loathing; that you abominate, shun, and shrink from, yourself. Is that really what God wants Christians to do? Sure, God wants us to recognize that we are sinful and that we need Christ as our Savior, but God doesn't want us to continually dwell on the fact that in and of ourselves we are worthless worms. He wants us to realize that we are sons of the King and that He sees us as righteous as His own Son. It doesn't help the gospel for people to see believers going around with their head hanging down and loathing themselves. God wants us to be full of joy and happiness in the Lord. People won't want a gospel that makes others miserable and unhappy.

The Bible itself refers to believers as 'saints' and as God's 'holy' people. The righteous, who will be saved, are contrasted in Scripture from "the wicked," which will be lost.

If God's word calls believers "saints" and "holy" people, what right does anyone have to say that it is wrong to use that language?

No one that I know of is saying they are "sinless." The Bible never uses "saints" or "holy" to refer to anyone as "sinless."

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Hmmm? Sounds like you believe God actually made a mistake so He changed His plans. And all this time I thought God does not change??

While God's character does not change, the Bible shows that God's plans do change according to what people do. Take, for instance, the following verses: Gen. 6: 5-7; Jonah 3: 10. If Ninevah hadn't repented, we can say for certain that God would have destroyed it. And if the people prior to the Flood had repented and sought the Lord and obeyed Him, we can also be sure God wouldn't have destroyed all those people in the Flood. In Daniel 9: 24-27, God gave Israel a choice to accept the Messiah or reject Him. The nation rejected Christ. If the nation had accepted Christ, God's response would have been quite different than it was when the nation rejected Christ. It wouldn't, however, have meant that God's character had changed. See Mal. 3: 6.

If God changed, He could change for the worse as well as for the better. And if He ever changed for the worse, what would you or anyone else be able to do about it? Nada.

[Robert]

Quote:

RobertPC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 10-17-07

AT- The Two Covenants

PR- 08

It is from the EGW CD from the White Estate....I think you guys are just stalling for time....

No stalling at all. Just saying it would be good if you would give references so people can look them up in books. I don't have the CD. Doesn't the CD show the title of the Book and the page number? Or if it gives RH, doesn't it give a date and page number?

Guys, come one...how hard is it?

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Written 10-17-1907, subject: The two covenants, paragraph 8

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

"Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption."

Do you abhor yourself, Robert? That means you reject yourself vehemently, with horror and loathing; that you abominate, shun, and shrink from, yourself. Is that really what God wants Christians to do?

[pnattmbtc]

i am on the side of those who propose the new perspective on paul, like mr. J. G. Dunn and Wright, theirs look on righteousness by faith is more objective to the teaching of the bible on that point. And sister E. G. White wrote that "righteousness by faith is (lifelong) experience", and "the three angels messages are messages of righteousness by faith". So as a consequence R. by F. is not sort of some legal transaction or the like, or the status change, it is more deeply relational an with broader issues.

I agree. I haven't read Dunn and Wright, but I've read Borg and Crossen, who I think make many excellent points. One of the main points is that people read into Paul meanings he could not possibly have had. The meaning of words, such as "justice" and "justification" and "atonement" and "sacrifice" and "righteousness" have changed, so the subject being discussed isn't even the same subject Paul had in mind.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

It sounds like you believe Jesus says, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you." And that under such circumstances Jesus is not culpable.

I've been saying the following:

Quote:

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. (GC 35-36)

I'm not understanding the difficulty here. The principles are all laid out here.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Do you think Jesus "required obedience" under both the NC and the OC?

I addressed this. I said the covenants are not matters of time but of condition, etc.

Quote:

A: Or, do you believe experiencing perfect obedience is possible under the NC but not under the OC?

P: We'd first have to understand what NC and OC refers to. I'm using these as Waggoner defined them. Given Waggoner's definitions, yes, obedience is only possible under the NC.

A:Do you think Jesus established the rules and regulations required under the OC? Or, do you think someone else did?

This looks like you're speaking of a time period. As I said (actually Waggoner), the OC is not a matter of time but of condition.

Quote:

A: If so, do you believe being under the NC exempted Jews from obeying and observing the rules and regulations required under the OC?

P: The covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Being under the NC means not living in a certain time period, but being born again. Similarly being under the OC means not being born again. If you're not born again, the only requirement that means anything is to be born again.

A:Do you believe born-again Jews were exempted from obeying and observing the rules and regulations required under the OC?

It doesn't look like you're understanding what is being said. At least, you're questions are indicating that you are. I don't understand the difficulty. It seems to me what I wrote is quite clear. I don't know how to make it clearer.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I wrote this:

Robert, think of it this way. If you don't love God or the principles of His government (aka agape), you wouldn't be happy in heaven. We need to be transformed so that we are in harmony with God and His principles. This is what being justified is all about; being set right with God.

Do you not agree with this? I really don't see how your response relates to what I wrote.

R:Do I love agape? Yes, "but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members."

In other words, "He who says, “I am holy, I am sinless,” is self-deceived. ....Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption."

So again, I agree believers are growing in grace, which proves their faith, but to say Christian are living Christ's life (hence, a commandment keeper) is a lie...it is self-deception.

Does EGW agree?

"The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary; but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled [with the principle of self] that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God."

What is this defilement? "The selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life." Hence, "Manhood, with its full, perfect, glorious development, will come, when, freed from the taint of sin [the principle of self], we stand among the redeemed throng. Then [not now] we shall enjoy a life which measures with the life of God."

1.You didn't include enough context for me to know what you were talking about. I had to go back to my post, and copy/paste it in to give the context. I've asked you not to do this. It's common courtesy to include the context in your post, to make them self-sufficient.

2.I asked you a simple yes/no question, which I still don't know the answer to.

I wrote this:

Quote:

Robert, think of it this way. If you don't love God or the principles of His government (aka agape), you wouldn't be happy in heaven. We need to be transformed so that we are in harmony with God and His principles. This is what being justified is all about; being set right with God.

and asked if you agree with this. Do you? If you don't, why not?

Again, I don't see how what you're writing is responsive to what I'm writing.

[Archie777]

Quote:

It sounds like you believe Jesus says, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you." And that under such circumstances Jesus is not culpable.

I've been saying the following:

Quote:

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. (GC 35-36)

I'm not understanding the difficulty here. The principles are all laid out here.

I do not see how the "withdraw and permit principle" you've been describing is any different than Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you."

[Guest]

Amen Archie. Sounds the same to me too.

[Archie777]

Quote:

Do you think Jesus "required obedience" under both the NC and the OC?

I addressed this. I said the covenants are not matters of time but of condition, etc.

Quote:

A: Or, do you believe experiencing perfect obedience is possible under the NC but not under the OC?

P: We'd first have to understand what NC and OC refers to. I'm using these as Waggoner defined them. Given Waggoner's definitions, yes, obedience is only possible under the NC.

A:Do you think Jesus established the rules and regulations required under the OC? Or, do you think someone else did?

This looks like you're speaking of a time period. As I said (actually Waggoner), the OC is not a matter of time but of condition.

Quote:

A: If so, do you believe being under the NC exempted Jews from obeying and observing the rules and regulations required under the OC?

P: The covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Being under the NC means not living in a certain time period, but being born again. Similarly being under the OC means not being born again. If you're not born again, the only requirement that means anything is to be born again.

A:Do you believe born-again Jews were exempted from obeying and observing the rules and regulations required under the OC?

It doesn't look like you're understanding what is being said. At least, you're questions are indicating that you are. I don't understand the difficulty. It seems to me what I wrote is quite clear. I don't know how to make it clearer.

[Guest]

Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself"! Can you same the same sitting in your nice home, with the green stuff in your bank? No! Why not? It took a lot of self-seeking and self-love to get you where you are at.

Can I assume then Robert, that you live under a bridge?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

M:It sounds like you believe Jesus says, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you." And that under such circumstances Jesus is not culpable.

I've been saying the following:

EGW:The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. (GC 35-36)

p:I'm not understanding the difficulty here. The principles are all laid out here.

M:I do not see how the "withdraw and permit principle" you've been describing is any different than Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you."

How do you get a "withdraw and permit" principle from what EGW wrote? I don't understand this.

Please note what she actually said:

Quote:

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.

If you wish to characterize this accurately, the "God is caused to withdraw and permit destruction principle" would be much better. God doesn't withdraw on a whim, as you seem to be implying. God is "caused to withdraw."

As I stated, this is a vital point.

[pnattmbtc]

Amen Archie. Sounds the same to me too.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

A:Do you think Jesus "required obedience" under both the NC and the OC?

p:I addressed this. I said the covenants are not matters of time but of condition, etc.

A: Or, do you believe experiencing perfect obedience is possible under the NC but not under the OC?

P: We'd first have to understand what NC and OC refers to. I'm using these as Waggoner defined them. Given Waggoner's definitions, yes, obedience is only possible under the NC.

A:Do you think Jesus established the rules and regulations required under the OC? Or, do you think someone else did?

p:This looks like you're speaking of a time period. As I said (actually Waggoner), the OC is not a matter of time but of condition.

A: If so, do you believe being under the NC exempted Jews from obeying and observing the rules and regulations required under the OC?

P: The covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Being under the NC means not living in a certain time period, but being born again. Similarly being under the OC means not being born again. If you're not born again, the only requirement that means anything is to be born again.

A:Do you believe born-again Jews were exempted from obeying and observing the rules and regulations required under the OC?

p:It doesn't look like you're understanding what is being said. At least, you're questions are indicating that you are. I don't understand the difficulty. It seems to me what I wrote is quite clear. I don't know how to make it clearer.

A:I'm not sure what "time" has to do with the rules and regulations Jesus required born-again Jews to obey and observe. Do you think the "additional precepts" Jesus required born-again Jews to obey and observe were experienced under the NC?

The OC is not a matter of time, but of condition. The rules and regulations were matters of time, but not the OC. The OC is a state of unbelief. As soon as one accepts Christ, one comes under the NC. The "requirement" for one who is under the OC is to accept Christ, so becoming under the new.

[Archie777]

If you wish to characterize this accurately, the "God is caused to withdraw and permit destruction principle" would be much better.

Again, how is this any different than, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you"?

[Archie777]

The OC is not a matter of time, but of condition. The rules and regulations were matters of time, but not the OC. The OC is a state of unbelief. As soon as one accepts Christ, one comes under the NC. The "requirement" for one who is under the OC is to accept Christ, so becoming under the new.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself"! Can you same the same sitting in your nice home, with the green stuff in your bank? No! Why not? It took a lot of self-seeking and self-love to get you where you are at.

Can I assume then Robert, that you live under a bridge?

Go ahead, mock all you want. Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself"....Opposite this your life is quite different. From the moment you started to learn everything was geared around you - your welfare - your needs - your future. Hence from birth you were born bent to self. Since we all share one humanity - the fallen life of Adam - we all experience this same bent to self.

Am I under a bridge? No. Am I clamoring for position...placing knifes in folks back so I can be number one? No. Therefore, by the grace of God, I am growing...maturing. As EGW states, "There should be less proud self-seeking, less self-importance." [5T 479]

The law, on the other hand, requires no self-seeking. How do I know this? "Agape is the fulfillment of the law" and according to Paul "agape.... is not self-seeking". If I am under law I am hopelessly lost. You too....Why? We aren't commandment keepers in the true sense of the word.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

p:If you wish to characterize this accurately, the "God is caused to withdraw and permit destruction principle" would be much better.

A:Again, how is this any different than, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you"?

You said this:

Quote:

I do not see how the "withdraw and permit principle" you've been describing is any different than Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you."

I don't understand why you're asking "again," when you've never asked this before. This is a new question, right?

I quoted the section from GC 35-36 at length. Do you find fault with the principle laid out there? Would you characterize that principle as, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you."? Do you see what she described as a negative thing?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

p:The OC is not a matter of time, but of condition. The rules and regulations were matters of time, but not the OC. The OC is a state of unbelief. As soon as one accepts Christ, one comes under the NC. The "requirement" for one who is under the OC is to accept Christ, so becoming under the new.

A:Do you think the "compact" called the "old covenant" is a condition of unbelief that was formed between God and the Jews and ratified by the blood of a sacrifice?

This "compact" called the "old covenant" (lower case) grew out of the condition of unbelief of the people, which is the Old Covenant (upper case), which is not a matter of time, but of condition.

Quote:

Do you think the terms of unbelief were, Obey and live?

The terms of the Old Covenant (upper case) is obey and live, and its contrast is explained here:

Quote:

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.

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ.(PP 372)

Before understand the "compact," it's important that we understand the principle, of which the "compact" is an example. Here is the principle laid out:

Quote:

That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise.

God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things."

But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God.

That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything.

That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything.(Emphasis mine.)

I highlighted the part which says that God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them, which is a key point. John was correct in pointing out that the promises of the New Covenant are superior to the promises of the Old Covenant because it is God who makes them, as opposed to man.

So the terms of the "old covenant" (lower case, the "compact"), as an example of the Old Covenant (the principle, under which, out of unbelief, people make vain promises to God) were "obey and live," but as under any example of the Old Covenant, this has 0% chance of success. As Waggoner explains, and Ellen White also, the people had need of the righteousness which they could obtain only from Christ, but didn't realize their condition, so God, in mercy, gave them commandments to recognize their condition, as well as a model in miniature of the sanctuary service to help them understand the Plan of Salvation.

Of course, the sanctuary service was a good thing, regardless of which covenant one was living under. If under the Old, it taught of the need for Christ, leading one to be converted, if he didn't resist the wooing of the Holy Spirit. If under the New, it was a way to celebrate one's salvation.