"In Christ" what does that mean?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

I study the Bible, I do not follow the fables of men

You are in bowels of legalism....You have no peace...no assurance...it's just work, work, work for you....You must earn salvation...you must become perfect and since you haven't arrived you terrorize everyone else so you'll be sidetracked from looking in the mirror and facing your own failures (i.e., you ain't measuring up to the demands of the law)....Its typical legalistic fundamentalism.... Been there, done that...was a better legalist than yourself, but God took my pride in my righteousness and slammed it in the dust....I am complete "in Christ"....

Can you say "amen" Redwood?

Amen. But could you tell us what you Really think? And don't hold back this time. :)

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Yeah, BEWARE of EVERYBODY'S opinions. Including mine!

I don't have an opinion on the gospel....It is fact!

The gospel is what Christ did in our fallen, corporate humanity 2000 years ago + nothing! The gospel is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Son of Man and the Son of God. It isn't about what He does in you - the fruit of the gospel....That's another subject.

But when one takes the gospel, which is Christ's doing & dying, and adds to it what He does in you, he has perverted the gospel. He is worse than a Judazier....

Fact? See what I mean? JUST AN OPINION!!!

Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection is no more good news than a newspaper article of the same if not for what it can/would do for me! Is it not good news that the gospel "teaches us to say 'NO' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age?" Titus 2:12 NIV. Or as the ESV renders it:

"training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,"

That the gospel "is the POWER of God for salvation to everyone who believes?"

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

I don't have an opinion on the gospel....It is fact!

The gospel is what Christ did in our fallen, corporate humanity 2000 years ago + nothing! The gospel is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Son of Man and the Son of God. It isn't about what He does in you - the fruit of the gospel....That's another subject.

But when one takes the gospel, which is Christ's doing & dying, and adds to it what He does in you, he has perverted the gospel. He is worse than a Judazier.... [/quote']

Fact? See what I mean? JUST AN OPINION!!!

No, not a opinion!!!! To get the two confused leads one into legalism and false doctrine!!!

[Woody]

Quote:

You made a bunch of claims, without presenting any evidence. When shown to be wrong (e.g., that Wieland does not teach that one can be saved by "believing and doing nothing,") rather than admit your error, you changed your accusation to "of course he doesn't STATE there are no conditions of salvation." In so doing, you admit that what you wrote previously, that Wieland did say this, was false, as well as the fact that you have no proof of your accusation.

"The envious man shuts his eyes to the good qualities and noble deeds of others. He is always ready to disparage and misrepresent that which is excellent. Men often confess and forsake other faults, but there is little to be hoped for from the envious man. Since to envy a person is to admit that he is a superior, pride will not permit any concession. If an attempt be made to convince the envious person of his sin, he becomes even more bitter against the object of his passion, and too often he remains incurable." {CCh 175.5}

"But if it is according to this test, do not be so full of prejudice that you cannot acknowledge a point when it is proved to you, simply because it does not agree with your ideas." {1888 547.8}

[Robert]

Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection is no more good news than a newspaper article of the same if not for what it can/would do for me!

See how you mix the two....This arrogance & ignorance all wrapped into one....

[Gerr]

Quote:

Fact? See what I mean? JUST AN OPINION!!!

No, not a opinion!!!! To get the two confused leads one into legalism and false doctrine!!!

Opinion! Again!

[Robert]

Opinion! Again!

Nope, not to see my point proves you are blind....

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Opinion! Again!

Nope, not to see my point proves you are blind....

Robert, instead of accusing someone saying "You this" or "you that" How about saying you disagree with the POSITION itself, then post your reasons why and your supporting proof.

Accusatory tactics will get you nowhere. Saying that someone is blind attacks their person and really serves to detract away from the point you are making even if you are correct!

God Bless! Steve

[Gerr]

Oh, I see your point alright. No light. Of course, that's just an opinion.

[teresaq]

Accusatory tactics will get you nowhere. Saying that someone is blind attacks their person ...!

God Bless! Steve

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

I study the Bible, I do not follow the fables of men

You are in bowels of legalism....You have no peace...no assurance...it's just work, work, work for you....You must earn salvation...you must become perfect and since you haven't arrived you terrorize everyone else so you'll be sidetracked from looking in the mirror and facing your own failures (i.e., you ain't measuring up to the demands of the law)....Its typical legalistic fundamentalism.... Been there, done that...was a better legalist than yourself, but God took my pride in my righteousness and slammed it in the dust....I am complete "in Christ"....

Can you say "amen" Redwood?

Robert,

All I can say at this point that what is instructive to me is your accusatory condemning spirit.If this is what your brand of gospel does for you then I want no part of it.

A friendly discussion with you seems to be impossible. Perhaps you need some "legalism" to help you treat others correctly.Faith without works is dead.

So here is some legalism for you:

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

[Steve Billiter]

The Areas of Disagreement Will Show the Differences between the SDA church and the 1888 Message Study Committee.

Primacy of the Gospel Committee - Report

Introduction

In pursuing matters raised in a small group—which included Robert S Folkenberg and George W Reid from the General Conference and Robert J Wieland, Donald K Short, and Gerald Finneman who are leaders in the 1888 Message Study Committee—the Administrative Committee appointed a committee to consider in depth the biblical doctrine of righteousness by faith. The particular focus of the committee was to give attention to the special understanding of this doctrine that has been advanced over the past 50 years by Robert J Wieland and Donald K Short, joined now by additional persons of the 1888 Message Study Committee. Included was an effort to relate the doctrine to the events of the 1888 General Conference Session in Minneapolis and subsequent events which reflect major concerns of the 1888 Message Study Committee.

The Primacy of the Gospel Committee (ADCOM-S) was appointed on May 17, 1994. Its original members were as follows:

Calvin B Rock, Chairman; Robert L Dale, Vice-chairman; George W Reid, Secretary; Richard Davidson, Gerald Finneman, Lloyd Knecht, George R Knight, Angel M Rodriguez, Donald K Short, Peter M Van Bemmelen, Mario Veloso, Nancy J Vyhmeister, Robert J Wieland, and Kenneth H Wood.

To provide a favorable environment for understanding one another, the committee membership was composed of leaders from the 1888 Message Study Committee and from the General Conference, including theologians from two General Conference educational institutions—the Andrews University Theological Seminary and the School of Religion at Loma Linda University. Of the original members, Kenneth H Wood asked to be released and Robert L Dale retired. The following additional persons were added to strengthen the group: Ivan Blazen, Robert J Kloosterhuis, Sidney Sweet, Woodrow Whidden, and Brian Schwartz. Robert J Kloosterhuis occasionally served as chairman.

Beginning with an initial meeting on May 24, 1995, the committee met 8 times, generally for 2� days each, for an equivalent of 15 full days. It studied prepared papers and held extended discussions on a variety of subjects identified by the 1888 Message Study Committee as important to their understanding of righteousness by faith as presented in Minneapolis.

The concluding session, held February 8, 2000, at Loma Linda University, spent the major portion of its time examining a summary report from the nearly five years of committee discussions. Although this report was reviewed by the entire committee during the final meeting and corrections were made, only the first section titled "Areas of Agreement" represents overall concurrence of the entire group. This full document should be understood as a report to the Administrative Committee by the General Conference, Andrews University, and Loma Linda University members of the committee.

Areas With Disagreement

1. Application of Ellen White's Remarks Related to 1888. There is disagreement on how to understand many of Ellen White's remarks related to 1888 and how they apply to the condition of the Church today. We believe these must be read in the context of the blatant legalism held by Butler, Smith, and their colleagues in beliefs. One must be extremely cautious in applying statements that were made in one context to a later period in which some of the factors have changed. Only a fuller understanding of the public teaching of the leading brethren of the Church in the pre-1888 period will enable readers in the 21st century to understand the impact of Ellen White's commendations and condemnations related to 1888 events and personalities.

2. Primacy of the Bible. While we affirm the intent of the 1888 Study Committee to uplift the primacy of the Bible, it appears to us that this is not consistently applied. At times it appears that the scriptural evidence is being examined through the theological understandings of Jones and Waggoner.

3. Ellen White's Endorsement of Jones and Waggoner. Ellen White's repeated endorsements of Jones and Waggoner did not mean that she agreed with all their teachings. It would be helpful if the 1888 Study Committee would seriously examine the many areas in which Ellen White differs with Jones and Waggoner or is virtually silent on topics or on a theological linkage that they emphasize.

It would also be informative to enumerate and explore the ramifications of those areas in which Ellen White explicitly commends (rather than alludes to) specific items in the writings of Jones and Waggoner (TM 91-93 is one example of this). Such explorations might help avoid giving Jones and Waggoners' theology an across-the-board endorsement. On the other hand, it would heighten the importance of those issues she specifically commended. Jones and Waggoner need to be read as theologians who had a "most precious message" that the Church desperately needed to hear, rather than as prophets or infallible guides—even in areas related to righteousness by faith.

4. Historical Accuracy. At times we sense a lack of historical accuracy when claims are made about Jones and Waggoner. History must speak for itself, even if it disagrees with Jones and Waggoner's evaluation of certain details or modern interpretations of them and their teachings.

5. Corporate Repentance. The impression should not be given that Ellen White ever called for corporate repentance in respect to events in 1888 or 1893, or that the General Conference administration of O A Olsen took the same position in regard to Jones and Waggoner as the Butler/Smith administration. The 1888 conflict witnessed a turnover in the leadership of the Church because of problems relating to the Minneapolis meeting. The new administration gave prominence to Jones and Waggoner throughout the 1890s. After 1888 it was Smith and Butler who were on the "outs" with the General Conference administration. Ellen White continued to call individuals to repentance, but did not call the denomination to repentance.

6. Universal Legal Justification. It is confusing to state that everyone is legally saved until they have "chosen to resist the saving grace of God," and then turn around and say that one needs faith in order to have saving (rather than legal) justification. For example, 1888Re-examined claims that "Christ's sacrifice is not merely provisional but effective for the whole world, so that the only reason anybody can be lost is that he has chosen to resist the saving grace of God" (p vi). Interestingly, Ellen White is quite content to say that "the provisions of redemption are free to all; [but] the results of redemption will be enjoyed by those who have complied with the conditions" (PP 208).

7. The "in Christ" Motif. We believe that the Pauline phrase "in Christ" expresses a relational rather than a legal concept. Romans 5, for example, is tied to the experience of justification by faith in the once-for-all work of Christ that is so central to the first five chapters of Romans, rather than being a legal declaration of something that happened to every person when Christ died on the cross. Such a view seems to imply that when a person is born he or she is born legally justified before God. However, the "many" who "will be made righteous" of Romans 5:19 must be understood in the context of Romans 1:16-17; 3:25-26; 4:1-5:1 and Paul's thesis that we are justified by faith rather than justified "in Christ" independent of a personal faith-commitment. It is important to see the "in Christ" and "in Adam" concepts as spiritual conditions rather than as a legal status. A merely legal interpretation of the "in Christ" motif has not led to a proper understanding of the biblical concept of corporate solidarity.

8. Nature of Christ. We accept the admonitions of Ellen White to "avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood" and that "the incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery" (5BC 1129). Here every human being must tread softly. It is important to treat fairly everything that the Bible and Ellen White have to say on this topic, realizing that neither of those sources necessarily gives the human nature of Christ the same prominence as did the post-Minneapolis Jones and Waggoner. The interpretation that Jones and Waggoner gave to the biblical materials on the human nature of Christ is not necessarily supported by Ellen White's full understanding of Christ's human nature.

9. Jones and Waggoner and the Reformers. We believe that on the subject of justification by faith Jones and Waggoner should not be set against the great reformers. To do so would contradict both Waggoner and Ellen White (Waggoner, Gospel in the Book of Galatians, p 70; White, Ms 8a. 15, and 24, 1888). The fuller understanding needs to be framed in terms of relating righteousness by faith to the third angel's message rather than to salvation itself.

10. The Old Covenant. It appears that the first time that the old covenant is explicitly mentioned in the Bible it is equated with the Torah of Sinai (2 Cor 3:14-15). We believe that the Bible describes the Sinaitic Covenant as a covenant of grace which the people willingly accepted as expressing God's will for them. The misunderstanding and misuse of the covenant by the people as a means of salvation does not alter the fact that it was never God's intention to institute a covenant of works with Israel.

11. Attitude of Criticism. Although 1888 Study Committee members consistently and genuinely express loyalty to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the overall effect of their criticizing of the Church body and its leadership, along with their separatist activities, has probably been one of the most powerful forces in moving large numbers of Adventists into schismatic criticism and activities. The committee has organized itself legally as a separate organization; presents as crucial certain positions that differ from those held by the body of the Church, leading at times to confusion and even conflict within congregations; holds its own convocations; publishes its own materials; authorizes its own speakers; and supports activities across the world, often without approval of the acknowledged leaders of the Church in those fields.

The historical study of similar developments in the formation of new denominations (as in the Wesleyan movement between 1738 and 1800 in Britain, and between 1870 and 1900 in America) is extremely informative here. At any rate, many Seventh-day Adventist schismatics initially cut their teeth on 1888-type criticisms. Church history tells us that the first generation of many movements had no intention of forming a new religious body, but subsequent generations, having been nourished on so-called "constructive criticism," merely follow the logic to its natural conclusion.

12. The Church and the Message of Justification by Faith. The church in its official documents has stated clearly its understanding of salvation through faith in Jesus.

"He [Christ] suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf" (Fundamental Belief# 4).

"God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker" (Fundamental Belief #7).

"In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life" (Fundamental Belief #9).

"Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life" (Fundamental Belief #10).

"Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments" (Fundamental Belief #18).

A comparison between the understanding of the Church and that of the 1888 Study Committee reveals significant differences that have contributed to confusion and in some cases division among church members.

Beyond question, the Church is in constant need of revival and reformation. Unless the gospel of justification by faith takes control of the life of each church member, transforming the person, we will remain in a state of lukewarmness. It is important for the Church, as it fulfills its mission, constantly to listen to the message of the True Witness (Rev 3:14-22).

Observations

The charges raised by the 1888 Study Committee against the leadership of the Church are very serious. If the Church is proclaiming a false gospel, it has no right to exist. A partial understanding of the gospel, as they claim the Church to have, is not a true understanding of the gospel. If they are the only ones who have a clear and completeunderstanding of the gospel, then everyone else is proclaiming a false gospel. They are implicitly accusing the Church, or at least the leaders of the Church, of apostasy. We have found such accusations to be groundless as evidenced in the official statements of beliefs of the Church.

Therefore, we firmly believe that the 1888 Study Committee should discontinue its claims that the true message of righteousness by faith was rejected by the leaders of the Church, that they never genuinely accepted it, and that they have intentionally kept it away from the Church and the world.

An Appeal

We do not question the sincerity of the leaders of the 1888 Study Committee, but we do question the wisdom of the current course of action. If the committee chooses to continue its work outside the organized Church, we appeal to it to adopt the pattern of what is described as a supportive ministry. Such groups seek places to work where, in harmony with and under guidance of Church leadership in that field, they carry out activities that are part of the planned program for that field. Almost always their efforts are designed to reach out to unbelievers, calling them to Christ and His righteousness, and enlisting them among His remnant people. Supportive ministries promote harmony in both doctrine and relationship with the Church. We desire this as the outcome of our prayer and study together.

Copyright © Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists® .

[teresaq]

...you must become perfect and since you haven't arrived you terrorize everyone else so you'll be sidetracked from looking in the mirror and facing your own failures (i.e., you ain't measuring up to the demands of the law)....Its typical legalistic fundamentalism.... Been there, done that...was a better legalist than yourself, but God took my pride in my righteousness and slammed it in the dust....I am complete "in Christ"....

im thinking it is more of not studying Christ....but i would say that applies to all of us, myself included.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

Accusatory tactics will get you nowhere. Saying that someone is blind attacks their person ...!

God Bless! Steve

you mean like this?

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

That person then who commits abortion is worshiping Satan by destroying life.

Not hardly, when I said those who kill babies are worshiping Satan, I did not say you are doing that. I mentioned no one on this forum.

My reply here was to Robert not you. He attacked my person just like you seem to be doing, if that makes you feel better about yourself and proves your theology correct, then I simply disagree. You could be damaging yourself, not me. My conscience is clear.

It is also unfortunate there is a lack of moderation on these forums.

Judge not, that ye be not judged." Do not think yourself better than other men, and set yourself up as their judge. Since you cannot discern motive, you are incapable of judging another. In criticizing him, you are passing sentence upon yourself; for you show that you are a participant with Satan, the accuser of the brethren. The Lord says, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." This is our work. "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Corinthians 11:31. {DA 314.1}

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

you mean like this?

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

That person then who commits abortion is worshiping Satan by destroying life.

Not hardly' date=' when I said those who kill babies are worshiping Satan, I did not say you are doing that. I mentioned no one on this forum.

My reply here was to Robert not you. He attacked my person just like you seem to be doing, if that makes you feel better about yourself and proves your theology correct, then I simply disagree. You could be damaging yourself, not me. My conscience is clear.

It is also unfortunate there is a lack of moderation on these forums.

Judge not, that ye be not judged." Do not think yourself better than other men, and set yourself up as their judge. Since you cannot discern motive, you are incapable of judging another. In criticizing him, you are passing sentence upon yourself; for you show that you are a participant with Satan, the accuser of the brethren. The Lord says, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." This is our work. "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Corinthians 11:31. {DA 314.1} [/quote']

Who can disagree with that Steve?

[teresaq]

The Primacy of the Gospel Committee (ADCOM-S) was appointed on May 17, 1994. Its original members were as follows:

Calvin B Rock, Chairman; Robert L Dale, Vice-chairman; George W Reid, Secretary; Richard Davidson, Gerald Finneman, Lloyd Knecht, George R Knight, Angel M Rodriguez, Donald K Short, Peter M Van Bemmelen, Mario Veloso, Nancy J Vyhmeister, Robert J Wieland, and Kenneth H Wood....

10. The Old Covenant. It appears that the first time that the old covenant is explicitly mentioned in the Bible it is equated with the Torah of Sinai (2 Cor 3:14-15). We believe that the Bible describes the Sinaitic Covenant as a covenant of grace which the people willingly accepted as expressing God's will for them. The misunderstanding and misuse of the covenant by the people as a means of salvation does not alter the fact that it was never God's intention to institute a covenant of works with Israel.

Copyright © Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists® .

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

you mean like this?

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

That person then who commits abortion is worshiping Satan by destroying life.

Not hardly' date=' when I said those who kill babies are worshiping Satan, I did not say you are doing that. I mentioned no one on this forum. [/quote']so, as long as you arent naming names you arent attacking their person?

[pnattmbtc]

Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection is no more good news than a newspaper article of the same if not for what it can/would do for me!

Is this what you really mean to say? This doesn't strike you as being a bit ego-centric?

[pnattmbtc]

Steve, regarding #311939, you must have had some purpose in posting this. What was it?

Also, you didn't respond to any points I made, as far as I can tell. In particular, you erred in saying that Wieland said that one could be saved, with no conditions, in saying "of course Wieland didn't STATE this." If he didn't state it, then you shouldn't have said he did. One could accuse anyone of anything using tactics like this.

For example, I could say, "Steve doesn't believe Christ is divine." and you would say "I do not!" and I would say, "Of course you don't STATE this."

Also you accused the 1888 MSC as being separatist with no evidence whatsoever to support your accusation, which is completely contrary to their beliefs. As I pointed out, they have no separate movement from which one could separate to.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

The Primacy of the Gospel Committee (ADCOM-S) was appointed on May 17, 1994. Its original members were as follows:

Calvin B Rock, Chairman; Robert L Dale, Vice-chairman; George W Reid, Secretary; Richard Davidson, Gerald Finneman, Lloyd Knecht, George R Knight, Angel M Rodriguez, Donald K Short, Peter M Van Bemmelen, Mario Veloso, Nancy J Vyhmeister, Robert J Wieland, and Kenneth H Wood....

10. The Old Covenant. It appears that the first time that the old covenant is explicitly mentioned in the Bible it is equated with the Torah of Sinai (2 Cor 3:14-15). We believe that the Bible describes the Sinaitic Covenant as a covenant of grace which the people willingly accepted as expressing God's will for them. The misunderstanding and misuse of the covenant by the people as a means of salvation does not alter the fact that it was never God's intention to institute a covenant of works with Israel.

Copyright © Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists® .

this statement by these people, whoever they are, does not appear to match ellen whites revelation from God. granted it is rather confused and indefinite, for me, it seems to deliberately go against the revealed inspiration of God.

oh, dear, who to follow....

Quote:

As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. The covenant of grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the Fall there was given a divine promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. To all men this covenant offered pardon and the assisting grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It also promised them eternal life on condition of fidelity to God's law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation. {PP 370.2}

This same covenant was renewed to Abraham in the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Genesis 22:18. This promise pointed to Christ. So Abraham understood it (see Galatians 3:8, 16), and he trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was accounted unto him for righteousness. The covenant with Abraham also maintained the authority of God's law. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, "I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect." Genesis 17:1. The testimony of God concerning His faithful servant was, "Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:5. And the Lord declared to him, "I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Genesis 17:7. {PP 370.3}

Though this covenant was made with Adam and renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of Christ. It had existed by the promise of God since the first intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted by faith; yet when ratified by Christ, it is called a new covenant. The law of God was the basis of this covenant, which was simply an arrangement for bringing men again into harmony with the divine will, placing them where they could obey God's law. {PP 370.4}

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. The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the "second," or "new," covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant. That the new covenant was valid in the days of Abraham is evident from the fact that it was then confirmed both by the promise and by the oath of God--the "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18. {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. ...

"If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant 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}

well, those who wish may follow these "men", whoever they are, but me and mine will follow the bible and sop.

This post (i.e., the original communication being commented on) is a bit misleading. Not all of the people that took part of the committee felt the same was as the writer here did. There were no plans to make any decision to stop the meetings. Many felt progress was being made. There was a last minute quorum, a quick decision to halt the meetings, and this communication was sent out. The whole thing was rather unfortunate. Many were enjoying the discussions. One member of the committee was furious about this, and said it would not have happened had he had any inkling there were plans like this in the working.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection is no more good news than a newspaper article of the same if not for what it can/would do for me!

Is this what you really mean to say? This doesn't strike you as being a bit ego-centric?

Yes, I mean that sincerely. If His birth, life, death, and resurrection does not do anyone any good, how would it be different from Natasha Richardson's death? Think about it. My mind is open if you want to disprove me. Egocentric? Is not Jn 3:16 all about the Father giving the Son for the benefit of man? What's the point if it did not benefit anyone?

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Originally Posted By: Norman

How many times must say that I am not interested in talking about these men at this time? I just made a comment about them, nothing more. This is getting close to harassment. Please let it go.

Then you should keep quite if you can't back up your charges....

[Robert]

how would it be different from Natasha Richardson's death?

....This is totally outrageous....The fact that your heart is beating right this minute is because God justified you unto life "in Christ Jesus"....That bread you eat is stamped with the cross. ....

Rob

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Is this what you really mean to say? This doesn't strike you as being a bit ego-centric?

Yes, I mean that sincerely. If His birth, life, death, and resurrection does not do anyone any good, how would it be different from Natasha Richardson's death? Think about it. My mind is open if you want to disprove me. Egocentric? Is not Jn 3:16 all about the Father giving the Son for the benefit of man? What's the point if it did not benefit anyone?

[/quote']

If you ask if it doesn't do anyone any good, that's much better.

Too often people are only concerned with their own salvation, rather than the honor and glory of Christ. The Great Controversy is not primarily about our personal salvation. It would be better to ask, "If the death of Christ does nothing to vindicate God's character, how is it good news?" Something like that.

Anyway, in response to your point, consider the emancipation proclamation. The good news lies in the proclamation, not in the response to the news. I'm not agreeing with everything Robert is saying - that should be clear by my comments - but I do agree with his point that the good news concerns Jesus Christ. It concerns us in a secondary way, but Christ's death would be good news, even if no human being chose to respond positively to it.

Quote:

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory.

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion. (DA 758)

The death of Christ decided the Great Controversy. That's good news!

[pnattmbtc]

Pnattmbtc keeps talking about J & W and then I make a comment and he tells me I keep bringing them up.

Both times I responded to a comment you made. Please be accurate about this. You initiated the comment, the first time regarding Ellen White, Jones, Waggoner, Wieland, and Sequeira. When I responded, you said you didn't want to talk about these people. I didn't raise the topic again in speaking to you.

Then you brought up Jones and Waggoner again, linking them to you. I responded to that, and you again said you didn't want to talk about them.

Now you've brought them up again. I'm responding again.

Each time you've brought them up. Each time I've responded.