"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

JOHN3:17: All we know is what the Bible and SOP tell us about these matters, which is that God knows the end from the beginning, but that, as said before, God took a real risk in sending the pre-incarnate Christ to come to this world as a man. I assert that it was "imperiled" simply on the testimony of the prophet of God, in whom I have complete confidence as the messenger of God.

What I believe is also found generally in books written by well-known Seventh-day Adventist writers, although there are some differences in the details among these writers, particularly on some doctrines such as the Trinity, Armageddon, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This doesn't make it true either.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You're right. I'm not telling you this as a way of proving my beliefs are correct or accurate.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: What post is this please? I don't know what the context is here. In particular, I wrote, "That doesn't make it true either." The "either" makes it sound like I may have made some other point, and that this is an additional point.

This is the post, #341067, on page 41 of this thread, that you asked me to respond to. I thought you would remember.

Do you know how to go back and find posts? If people are posting in the right way, you should be able to find the post they are responding to, simply by clicking on the name of the poster which is by the title of the thread at the top of the post. For instance:

[Re: John3:17]

[Robert]

So are you living Christ's life or are self-interests still manifested in your life?

Yes?

[pnattmbtc]

quote]This is the post, #341067, on page 41 of this thread, that you asked me to respond to. I thought you would remember.

[Archie777]

A: The children were killed and eaten because Jesus did not protect them. Why didn't He protect them?

P: "By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will."

Earlier you wrote, "Of course, the children were innocent victims. Wherever there is sin, there are innocent victims. This is the nature of sin."

Do you believe Jesus works to supernaturally prevent sinners from experiencing the natural, inevitable result of sinning (suffering ending in death)? And, do you believe sinners suffer and die when they force, cause Jesus to withdraw His protection?

If so, then it stands to reason you believe the consequences of sinning are directly related to what happens when Jesus gives evil men and evil angels permission to punish and destroy them. Such results are tailor-made by Jesus to suit the circumstances. That is, He establishes and enforces limits beyond which evil men and evil angels are forbidden to exceed.

Killing and eating innocent children, therefore, was expressly permitted by Jesus. Otherwise, He would have prevented it. Jesus doesn't sit back and accept innocent losses chalking it up to collateral damage par for the course. His hands are not tied.

As sovereign Lord and Savior, it is incumbent upon Him to ensure, guarantee things play out according to the permissive will of God our Father. Jesus, not sin, not self, not sinful men, not evil angels is in control of the outcome of the great controversy. True, we manage the choices, but even more true is the wonderful and awesome fact Jesus manages the consequences.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

Do you believe possessing sinful flesh is the same thing as committing a sin?

Not only do you stand condemned under law for transgression, you stand condemned because you were born depraved, i.e., you were born bent to self.

Do I have your permission to conclude your answer to the question above is - Yes?

If so, then another question comes to mind. On what basis will children, who die before reaching the age of accountability, be saved or lost?

[Archie777]

A: It is clear in the Bible Jesus never commanded the Jews to get divorced. It is equally as clear He did command godly people like Moses to kill sinners.

P: Again, I believe the counsels were similar in character. Neither represented God's ideal will. God's ideal will was revealed in Christ.

By "counsels" do you mean "laws"? Are they suggestions, guidelines? Or, are they commandments? Is obedience optional depending on the circumstances?

Do you know of any place in the Bible where Jesus "commanded" someone to get divorced on pain of punishment if they refused to obey?

Do you know of any place in the Bible where Jesus "commanded" someone to execute capital punishment on pain of punishment if they refused to obey?

PS - Please know that I understand the difference God's ideal will and His permissive will. I do not believe, however, that God permits anything to happen that violates the law. Everything He does, everything He permits is in harmony with the law. Jesus is a law-abiding God. The law is, after all, a transcript of His character. Whatever He does, therefore, no matter how "strange" it may seem to us, is an expression of the law.

[Archie777]

Pnatt, regarding the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 28, I hear you saying Jesus does not directly cause the curses to happen, that they happen when He is forced to withdraw His protection and permit evil men or evil angels to cause them to play out according to the description in Deuteronomy 28.

I was wondering, though, what you believe about the blessings. Do you believe Jesus causes the blessings to play out according to the description in Deuteronomy 28? Or, do you think they play out according to natural law and that it isn’t necessary for Jesus to do anything special to make them happen?

I am also wondering about something else. I hear you saying the “additional” rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai would have been unnecessary if they had been in the habit of obeying and observing the terms and conditions required under the NC (i.e. the 10Cs, circumcision, and animal sacrifices).

But before A&E sinned, the law consisted of “two great commandments” - “love the Lord thy God” and “love thy neighbor as thyself”. After A&E sinned, Jesus expanded the law. “After the transgression of Adam the principles of the law were not changed, but were definitely arranged and expressed to meet man in his fallen condition.” {1SM 230.1}

Do you agree, then, that sinning made it necessary for Jesus to state more clearly what is meant by “love the Lord thy God” and “love thy neighbor as thyself”? Do you agree that each time Jesus expanded the law He was merely expressing more clearly what it means to live in harmony with the “two great commandments”?

I will be transparent. No hidden agenda. No surprises. Ellen makes it clear that the 613 rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai were nothing more than an expansion of the Ten Commandments. Each new rite, each new rule is an innate, inherent part of the law. They simply illustrated and applied the principles of the law. “That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments.” {PP 310.1}

Obeying and observing the rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai was “the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.” Living in harmony with them was an expression of the “two great commandments” and, by extension, an expression of the Ten Commandments. “These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.” {PP 311.3}

Do you agree capital punishment was one of the rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai? If so, do you also agree executing capital punishment illustrates and applies the principles of the Ten Commandments?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

A: The children were killed and eaten because Jesus did not protect them. Why didn't He protect them?

P: "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."

A:Earlier you wrote, "Of course, the children were innocent victims. Wherever there is sin, there are innocent victims. This is the nature of sin."

Do you believe Jesus works to supernaturally prevent sinners from experiencing the natural, inevitable result of sinning (suffering ending in death)? And, do you believe sinners suffer and die when they force, cause Jesus to withdraw His protection?

I believe what GC 35-36 says. I think what is said there is very clear. Is there more than one way of understanding what it says there? I'm not seeing the need for clarification.

Quote:

If so, then it stands to reason you believe the consequences of sinning are directly related to what happens when Jesus gives evil men and evil angels permission to punish and destroy them. Such results are tailor-made by Jesus to suit the circumstances. That is, He establishes and enforces limits beyond which evil men and evil angels are forbidden to exceed.

Of course there are limits, as Job brings out. Otherwise Satan would kill everyone, and there couldn't be a Great Controversy.

Quote:

Killing and eating innocent children, therefore, was expressly permitted by Jesus. Otherwise, He would have prevented it.

This is rather circular, isn't it? I wouldn't say it was "expressly permitted," as that sounds almost as if it's something He desired. I would say simply "permitted." Obviously nothing can happen that God does not permit, since God is omnipotent. But many things happen contrary to God's will (sin is a perfect example).

Quote:

Jesus doesn't sit back and accept innocent losses chalking it up to collateral damage par for the course. His hands are not tied.

I'm not sure what you're wanting to say here. This again makes is sound as if Jesus is complicit with what's happening, or perhaps worse, desiring these terrible things happen.

Quote:

As sovereign Lord and Savior, it is incumbent upon Him to ensure, guarantee things play out according to the permissive will of God our Father. Jesus, not sin, not self, not sinful men, not evil angels is in control of the outcome of the great controversy.

The outcome, sure, but not the incidents that occur along the way. Satan is the author of sin and all its results, not God.

Quote:

True, we manage the choices, but even more true is the wonderful and awesome fact Jesus manages the consequences.

If this means that the character of God, and the principles of His government, are revealed although evil things happen in this world, I agree. If this means that He is somehow complicit or behind or the cause of any of the evil things which happen, then I strongly disagree.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

A: It is clear in the Bible Jesus never commanded the Jews to get divorced. It is equally as clear He did command godly people like Moses to kill sinners.

P: Again, I believe the counsels were similar in character. Neither represented God's ideal will. God's ideal will was revealed in Christ.

A:By "counsels" do you mean "laws"?

A law could be a counsel, but isn't necessarily one.

Quote:

Are they suggestions, guidelines? Or, are they commandments? Is obedience optional depending on the circumstances?

It depends on what is being referred to.

Quote:

Do you know of any place in the Bible where Jesus "commanded" someone to get divorced on pain of punishment if they refused to obey?

Do you know of any place in the Bible where Jesus "commanded" someone to execute capital punishment on pain of punishment if they refused to obey?

PS - Please know that I understand the difference God's ideal will and His permissive will. I do not believe, however, that God permits anything to happen that violates the law.

Of course He does. If He didn't, there would be no sin, since sin is, by definition, that which is contrary to the law.

Quote:

Everything He does, everything He permits is in harmony with the law. Jesus is a law-abiding God. The law is, after all, a transcript of His character. Whatever He does, therefore, no matter how "strange" it may seem to us, is an expression of the law.

No, not everything God does is in harmony with the law, or else we'd have heaven on earth. Earth is as it is because NOT everything that happens is in harmony with God's law. I don't see how you can assert this.

Jesus taught us to pray, "They will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." If God's will were already being done on earth, there would be no need for this prayer.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnatt, regarding the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 28, I hear you saying Jesus does not directly cause the curses to happen, that they happen when He is forced to withdraw His protection and permit evil men or evil angels to cause them to play out according to the description in Deuteronomy 28.

Yes, that looks to me to be what is being said. The "anger of God" is related to His "hiding His face," and of the of "troubles which will come upon you" which tell others that "God is not among you."

Quote:

I was wondering, though, what you believe about the blessings. Do you believe Jesus causes the blessings to play out according to the description in Deuteronomy 28? Or, do you think they play out according to natural law and that it isn’t necessary for Jesus to do anything special to make them happen?

I think both happen. That is, the principles which God teaches us often bring about blessings by their very nature. For example, if we obey the laws of health, we receive blessings from that, because this is how we were made. So many of the blessings are natural consequences. However, God also does many wonderful things supernaturally. The difference between the blessings and the curses is that God doesn't do bad or evil things (i.e., things which are "curses") but only good things. So while there are supernatural bad things which happen, these are not things which God does, but that He permits. But the supernatural good things that happen are caused either by God or holy angels, so there are blessings of both types (i.e., both natural and supernatural).

Quote:

I am also wondering about something else. I hear you saying the “additional” rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai would have been unnecessary if they had been in the habit of obeying and observing the terms and conditions required under the NC (i.e. the 10Cs, circumcision, and animal sacrifices).

I didn't say this, not would I. However, EGW talks about something similar in "The Law and the Covenants". The reason I wouldn't say something like this is because of the phrase "terms and conditions required under the NC." The NC is a promise from God to forgive our sins and write the law on our hearts. The "terms and conditions" are to believe. This is what Abraham did. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." This is righteousness by faith. The other things are signs of faith, which is Paul's point, that Abraham was circumcised *after* he was declared righteous, so his circumcision was a sign of the faith Abraham *already* had. Abraham became righteous by faith.

Quote:

But before A&E sinned, the law consisted of “two great commandments” - “love the Lord thy God” and “love thy neighbor as thyself”. After A&E sinned, Jesus expanded the law. “After the transgression of Adam the principles of the law were not changed, but were definitely arranged and expressed to meet man in his fallen condition.” {1SM 230.1}

Do you agree, then, that sinning made it necessary for Jesus to state more clearly what is meant by “love the Lord thy God” and “love thy neighbor as thyself”? Do you agree that each time Jesus expanded the law He was merely expressing more clearly what it means to live in harmony with the “two great commandments”?

I will be transparent. No hidden agenda. No surprises. Ellen makes it clear that the 613 rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai were nothing more than an expansion of the Ten Commandments. Each new rite, each new rule is an innate, inherent part of the law. They simply illustrated and applied the principles of the law.

Then we should keep them now, by your logic, shouldn't we?

Quote:

“That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments.” {PP 310.1}

Obeying and observing the rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai was “the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.” Living in harmony with them was an expression of the “two great commandments” and, by extension, an expression of the Ten Commandments. “These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.” {PP 311.3}

Do you agree capital punishment was one of the rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai? If so, do you also agree executing capital punishment illustrates and applies the principles of the Ten Commandments?

Executing capital punishment illustrates and applies the principles of the Ten Commandments? No, I think you're looking in the wrong place!

If you wish to understand the principles of the Ten Commandments, look to Christ! Consider His life while here in the flesh -- His life, teachings, and character -- and there you can see the principles of the law fleshed out, so to speak. I think as long as one has one's focus on the Old Testament over the New, confusion is bound to result.

[Archie777]

Pnatt, thank you for responding to my points and sharing an alternative view.

“That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments.” {PP 310.1}

“These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.” {PP 311.3}

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnatt, thank you for responding to my points and sharing an alternative view.

“That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments.” {PP 310.1}

“These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.” {PP 311.3}

These quotes shouldn't be understood as contradicting what Waggoner said, especially given that EGW endorsed his view as "clear and convincing" as well as stating that we would be "spending our investigative powers for naught" to come up with "an alternative view."

Let's consider what Waggoner taught:

Quote:

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

From this we see:

1.God did not induce them to make the covenant at Sinai.

2.Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes.

3.When the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, saying, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5.

4.To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham.

5.The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary.

So I think this makes quite clear that what I've been saying is correct.

With this background, let's take a look at the quotes you provided:

Quote:

That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. {PP 310.1}

These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. {PP 311.3}

Assuming that Ellen White understood what Waggoner taught, and didn't contradict herself, let's see if we can understand these quotes in harmony with the above. The first quote says that additional precepts were given to illustrate and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments. I don't see anything here that would contradict what Waggoner said. Do you?

A similar reply seems to me to apply to the next quote as well.

[Robert]

On what basis will children, who die before reaching the age of accountability, be saved or lost?

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

The righteousness of Christ.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert to John

So are you living Christ's life or are self-interests still manifested in your life?

Yes?

Your silence, John, speaks volumes....

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

R:So are you living Christ's life or are self-interests still manifested in your life?

Yes?

Your silence, John, speaks volumes.

Why would you think what John does would make any difference in regards to what the truth is? How could there possibly be any connection?

This reminds me of the debates between Zwingli and Wesley, IIRC, where Wesley asked something like, "What do you fight so zealously for sin? What has sin ever done for you?"

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

On what basis will children, who die before reaching the age of accountability, be saved or lost?

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

The righteousness of Christ.

"All men"! Who, then, can be lost? Or, do you only apply this to children? Do you think "all" children, who die before they reach the age of accountability, will be in heaven?

[Archie777]

Quote:

Pnatt, thank you for responding to my points and sharing an alternative view.

“That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments.” {PP 310.1}

“These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.” {PP 311.3}

These quotes shouldn't be understood as contradicting what Waggoner said, especially given that EGW endorsed his view as "clear and convincing" as well as stating that we would be "spending our investigative powers for naught" to come up with "an alternative view."

Let's consider what Waggoner taught:

Quote:

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

From this we see:

1.God did not induce them to make the covenant at Sinai.

2.Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes.

3.When the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, saying, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5.

4.To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham.

5.The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary.

So I think this makes quite clear that what I've been saying is correct. With this background, let's take a look at the quotes you provided:

Quote:

That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. {PP 310.1}

These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. {PP 311.3}

Assuming that Ellen White understood what Waggoner taught, and didn't contradict herself, let's see if we can understand these quotes in harmony with the above. The first quote says that additional precepts were given to illustrate and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments. I don't see anything where that would contradict what Waggoner said. Do you? A similar reply seems to me to apply to the next quote as well.

Ellen is simply saying the 613 rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai illustrate and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments and were to be carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law and the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.

[Robert]

Quote:

R:So are you living Christ's life or are self-interests still manifested in your life?

Yes?

Your silence, John, speaks volumes.

"What do you fight so zealously for sin? What has sin ever done for you?"

I fight zealously against self-righteousness, legalism, denominational pride and perfectionism. All of these are tools of the devil to sidetrack believers from the truth as it is "in Christ".

Rob

[Robert]

"All men"! Who, then, can be lost?

[pnattmbtc]

p:Assuming that Ellen White understood what Waggoner taught, and didn't contradict herself, let's see if we can understand these quotes in harmony with the above. The first quote says that additional precepts were given to illustrate and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments. I don't see anything where that would contradict what Waggoner said. Do you? A similar reply seems to me to apply to the next quote as well.

A:Ellen is simply saying the 613 rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai illustrate and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments and were to be carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law and the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.

This isn't what I asked. You seem to be disagreeing with what Waggoner taught, which is:

1.God did not induce them to make the covenant at Sinai.

2.Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes.

3.When the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, saying, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5.

4.To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham.

5.The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary.

I pointed this out in the post above. I said that what EGW wrote should contradict this, given she herself endorsed Waggoner's view as "clear and convincing" as well as "truth," and I don't believe it does. I don't believe the statement you provided contradicts what Waggoner said in any way.

The laws had different functions. One function was to make clear the righteousness of the law, so the people could see their need for Christ. Another was to make clear the Plan of Salvation. There were also laws that were helpful for the people in general, for health reasons or other reasons.

At any rate, the five points above are most directly of interest in terms of our discussion of the Covenants.

[pnattmbtc]

I fight zealously against self-righteousness, legalism, denominational pride and perfectionism. All of these are tools of the devil to sidetrack believers from the truth as it is "in Christ".

These things are fine to fight against, but you seem to define these things as anyone having a different idea than you in regards to your theories. I don't think your theories touch on what's really important, which is how can we be happy in heaven. Even if I know the theory perfectly that you espouse, that wouldn't make me necessarily happy in heaven, would it? What needs to happen for me to be a citizen of heaven, that would be happy to be there, and that others would be happy to have there?

[Archie777]

Robert, thank you for answering my questions. In case you care to know, I believe Jesus will determine in judgment who will be in heaven. He will base His decisions on character. Children, who die before they reach the age of accountability, will be judged on the characters they would have developed had they not died. He can do this because He knows the end from the beginning. He is omniscient. For example, before they were born, Jesus knew the eternal destiny of Jacob and Esau.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

p:Assuming that Ellen White understood what Waggoner taught, and didn't contradict herself, let's see if we can understand these quotes in harmony with the above. The first quote says that additional precepts were given to illustrate and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments. I don't see anything where that would contradict what Waggoner said. Do you? A similar reply seems to me to apply to the next quote as well.

A:Ellen is simply saying the 613 rites and rules Jesus gave the Jews at Sinai illustrate and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments and were to be carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law and the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.

This isn't what I asked. You seem to be disagreeing with what Waggoner taught, which is:

1.God did not induce them to make the covenant at Sinai.

2.Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes.

3.When the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, saying, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5.

4.To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham.

5.The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary.

I pointed this out in the post above. I said that what EGW wrote should contradict this, given she herself endorsed Waggoner's view as "clear and convincing" as well as "truth," and I don't believe it does. I don't believe the statement you provided contradicts what Waggoner said in any way.

The laws had different functions. One function was to make clear the righteousness of the law, so the people could see their need for Christ. Another was to make clear the Plan of Salvation. There were also laws that were helpful for the people in general, for health reasons or other reasons.

At any rate, the five points above are most directly of interest in terms of our discussion of the Covenants.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, thank you for answering my questions. In case you care to know, I believe Jesus will determine in judgment who will be in heaven. He will base His decisions on character. Children, who die before they reach the age of accountability, will be judged on the characters they would have developed had they not died. He can do this because He knows the end from the beginning. He is omniscient. For example, before they were born, Jesus knew the eternal destiny of Jacob and Esau.

Butting in a bit, I agree with the first part of this. I don't think it will be possible to take all children to heaven. Unfortunately, many wouldn't have characters or be able to develop characters such that they would be happy there. Prenatal influences and the influences of parents are important to the development of character.

I agree with the comment that God is omniscient, and will know what characters the children would develop. However, I think He knows this from knowing the character of the children, not by any crystal-ball like powers.

Regarding Jacob and Esau, God knew what characters they would develop provided they made certain choices. It's important that we realize this was conditional. That is, it was not a certainty that Esau would develop the character that he did. He could have developed a righteous character.

[pnattmbtc]

We seem to be focusing on different aspects of the covenants. I concluded my contributions to the discussion above with the following post: