Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[pnattmbtc]

“Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing.  Yourself and…others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. Had you received the true light which shineth you would not have imitated or gone over the same manner of interpretation and misconstruing the Scriptures as did the Jews… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light…” (Ellen White, Letter to Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890)

This is an Ellen White endorsement of Waggoner's teaching on the covenants.  For those who don't care about the endorsement, just reading through what Waggoner wrote, I've not come across anything as clear, easy to understand, and logical as what Waggoner presented.  If anyone is interested, I can post some resources online to look at. 

[brotherly love]

Is there any chance of having a real conversation on the internet?

[brotherly love]

In response to "not knowing scripture", "forgetting" or "lazy"-I guess if it is real to that person, then so be it!

I will repeat,the Law of Moses is functionally obsolete. There is no place on earth that exists where a person would be able to observe it or practice it. A person can give reference to their neighbor who made a replica of the ark and sacrificed chickens in his backyard, but this would have been unacceptable to God in the Law of Moses. I dont think I have to go into details of why. It makes it even more unacceptable after the sacrifice of Jesus.I don think I have to explain why.

Yet the message in the Law of Moses would be relevant in tangible ways. We need to understand the message and wisdom, and then apply it in our lives.

Deuteronomy 30:19

 

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

God made it very clear that death was not to mix with life, the faithful are to choose life. We are to have a reverence for life.

Leviticus 11:37-38

³⁷ If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. ³⁸ But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

The seed had no life in it until it was watered, until there was life in the seed, there was no problem with it touching a dead animal. Once life was present, then death was unacceptable.

1. If I try to tell others that they are sinning because a dead animal touched their plants and germinated seeds and dont consider it unclean. If i told someone they were unclean, or there plants were unclean, and unacceptable to God in this time. Then I rightly would be called a legalist under the new covenant.

2. If i tell others to ignore the meaning and throw it out the door-then I rightly would be called lawless.

3. If i suggested that a person should not be quick to kill any critter that moved around the garden, but seek other methods that preserve life first. i would be applying the message of the text.

The message of boiling a young goat or sheep in its mothers milk is the same.

“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk."

The life giving milk of the mother should not be fused with its death.This is applying the wisdom of God with everyday life of an Israelite. I am not suggesting a return to Torah, nor am I saying to ignore it. I am saying that we need to understand it and apply the principles to our faith in a God of life

 

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

Given that God's covenant with Abraham had everything anybody would ever need, why would God not simply refer to that covenant?

Because Scripture shows that God makes better covenants that build on His previous covenants and promises.  In a sense, the promise of the Messiah that God gave to Adam and Eve was all they would ever need for salvation in Christ.  Yet after the flood God gave to Noah and the animals the covenant of day and night, seedtime and harvest, with the rainbow as the sign of the promise that the earth would not be destroyed by water again.  Then God gave a better covenant to Abraham and his descendants with the sign of circumcision.  Then God gave a better covenant to the Israelites at Sinai, with the Sabbath as a sign.  Later, God gave a covenant of peace and an everlasting priesthood to Phinehas the grandson of Aaron and his descendants.  Later God gave King David a covenant of a lasting throne, a covenant that Jesus inherited but has not yet been implemented.  Then God gave Jeremiah the prophecy of the new or renewed covenant.  None of these covenants annulled, replaced, or changed any of God's preceding covenants.  God's covenants can be trusted.

Scripture also shows that God proceeded to make a covenant with the Israelites in the very next chapter.

According to Scripture the "New Covenant" is not fully in place yet, for part of the "New Covenant" promise says, "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," (Jeremiah 31:34)  I suspect that some of your neighbors do not yet know YHWH.  Indeed one of the last things Jesus commissioned his followers to do was to go make disciples and to teach all nations the same things that Jesus had taught the original disciples. So as long as we are still working on that commission, the New Covenant hasn't been fully implemented, yet there are already first fruits of that covenant visible in God's people.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Ron Amnsn

[Ron Amnsn]

 

The "New Covenant" is also called "The Everlasting Covenant", and is the one made to Abraham, from whom Paul develops his argument relating to justification by faith.  It's a bit confusing that the "New Covenant" came into existance before the "Old" one.  Ellen White writes that the "New Covenant" is called such because the blood by which it was ratified came after the blood used in the Old one.

In the New Covenant, the law is written in the heart and in the mind.  This was a "new" thing in terms of time, as this is what happened to Abraham (and, indeed, as far back as Abel), and happens to any believer in Christ.  Believing in Christ, being justified by faith, being born again, partaking of the New Covenant (or Everlasting Covenant) are all synonmyns.

In the Old Covenant, the people in their unbelief did not react as Abraham did (Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness), but "all that the Lord said, *we* will do".  They rashly thought they could provide the requisite righteousness, so the Lord made that righteous as explicit as possible, in order to show them that they couldn't, that they might be led to Christ, who could, and back to the New Covenant wherein Abraham had been justified.

If the Everlasting Covenant (aka New Covenant) was made with Abraham and the Old Covenant didn't start until the people allegedly responded "rashly" in Exodus 19, then what do you do with what Moses taught under the New and Everlasting Covenant regarding Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Exodus 12?  "Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance." and "You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance."   Since God instructed the heirs of Abraham living under what you call the New and Everlasting Covenant (and before the Israelites allegedly concocted the Old Covenant) that Passover and Unleavened Bread were to be observed throughout their generations, why don't all the current heirs of the New and Everlasting Covenant observe Passover and Unleavened Bread as instructed by Moses for people living within the New and Everlasting Covenant?

You seem to be judging the Israelites against a standard that is not taught in Scripture.  Earlier you said that "God's covenant with Abraham had everything anybody would ever need", but where in God's covenant with Abraham (or anywhere else in Scripture) did it teach the Israelites that it would be "rash" or arrogant or somehow wrong to commit themselves to obey whatever God would tell them to do?  According to what you say, the Israelites needed to know a better way to respond to God, but God's covenant with Abraham didn't provide them with the necessary instruction that you are now offering now thousands of years after the fact.  You allege that they should have answered differently, but where do we find where God taught them a better way to answer?  By what Scriptural standard do you condemn the Israelites?  Where is the "Thus says the Lord" that shows that what the Israelites response to God's offer of a covenant in Exodus 19 was anything less than a good answer?  If those people of Israel were brought before a righteous judge for speaking "All that the LORD has spoken we will do," what passage of Scripture would the Judge use to accuse the people as you have done?  Where does God give us the prerogative to speak ill of the Israelites for their response? 

God himself actually judged the Israelites quite differently than you have in regard to the whole Sinai experience.  In Deuteronomy 5 after Moses has retold the experience of the Israelites at Sinai he says, "The LORD heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, 'I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They have done well in all that they have spoken. Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!"  (Deut. 5:28-29)  Notice that God does not lament that the people spoke the wrong words, or that they spoke rashly, but rather God laments that the people don't yet have a heart to actually do what they have spoken.  Throughout Scripture it recounts the errors and rebellions of the people of Israel when retelling the story of the Exodus, but not once does it mention that the people responded poorly when God offered them the covenant at Sinai.  If the lesson is as important as you allege, it seems that God's Word would actually say so.

What you are teaching regarding the Israelites response actually reflects very poorly on God himself.  Jesus taught that we should go directly to people who offend or sin against us (Matt 17), but you are teaching that God himself does not do that with his covenant people the Israelites, but instead God neglects to ever tell the people themselves that they said something wrong, but rather God waits thousands of years to inform strangers that the Israelites answered incorrectly in Exodus 19, even though God had never actually taught the people to respond any differently, and even though the chosen people were supposedly already living under the New and Everlasting Covenant where God has promised to embed his Law in the hearts of the people so that when they respond spontaneously as the did in Exodus 19 they will automatically be obeying God's will.  What I hear you saying is that God's New Covenant failed for the Israelites in Exodus 19, so we can therefore criticize them for being "rash".  You seem to teach that God is quite fickle.

If God's New and Everlasting Covenant that was given to Abraham failed the Israelites so miserably, without God ever letting them know that they spoke incorrectly, how do you know that the New and Everlasting Covenant is not also failing you miserably when you at one time sang a hymn that expresses an intention to obey God or follow Jesus?  Will you find out thousands of years later that you're hooped because you said something wrong when the preacher asked you if you wanted to enter into covenant with God? 

What you seem to be teaching goes against Scripture in so many ways.

[pnattmbtc]

Is there any chance of having a real conversation on the internet?

Yes, it's possible, but challenging, for various reasons.  To mention a couple, the medium itself lends itself to being easily misunderstood, as one is missing things like voice inflection and body language, the result being that posts can come across one or two degrees angrier than what the author may have intended.  It's also easy to misunderstand someone as being sarcastic when that wasn't there intention (I think that happened with us).  Being limited only to printed words makes it a challenge.

Another challenge is people who post tend to have agendas, which I don't mean as either a good or bad thing.  It's simply that there has to be some reason that leads people to want to discuss, and often it's because people have things they want to share, and there can be a challenge to put on one's "listening hat" as well.

But in spite of these challenges, I've learned a great deal from these discussions.

[Samie]

. . .

So, the law is not defective, and I have never said that it is nor will I ever say that it is.  The law is necessary and serves an important purpose, and we cannot be saved without it, at least not in terms of becoming fully mature sons of God and fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles.  However, with Paul I will say that the law is deficient.  There is a big difference.  The law has no power to save us and therefore we do not derive our righteousness from it;That righteousness and the first step in our salvation can only come from faith in the blood of Jesus Christ and the work it does within us.  The law can only convict us of sin and teach us what sin is.  The difference between  the Old Covenant and New Covenant is our relationship to the law. 

. . .

I am a bit concerned about the statement I highlighted in bold red above. It appears to me as salvation by works because UNLESS one believes first, the initial step in his salvation cannot come.  Believing is exercising faith, hence, it is work.  Faith is fruit of the Spirit; and fruit comes AFTER one is already attached to the Vine.

I believe Scriptures teach that the first step in our salvation is God’s work FOR man through Christ, and that it was all by His grace; not an iota of human participation.  I call this the First Dimension (of the 3 dimensions) of the Gospel or the Past Tense of Salvation.  It is in the Second Dimension – the Present Tense of Salvation – where man’s participation is necessary.  That participation is by overcoming evil with good.  

It is in the first dimension that we were empowered, having been attached to Him Who is our Strength to overcome.  It is in the second dimension that we are to use His power to overcome evil with good.

[pnattmbtc]

 Believing is exercising faith, hence, it is work. 

 

This can't be the case.  Consider, for example, the following:

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Romans 4:3-8)

 Here faith is contrasted with works.  Paul, in the clearest language, makes clear that faith is *not* work, e.g. "to him that worketh not, but believeth".

 

[pnattmbtc]

I am a bit concerned about the statement I highlighted in bold red above. It appears to me as salvation by works because UNLESS one believes first, the initial step in his salvation cannot come.  Believing is exercising faith, hence, it is work.  Faith is fruit of the Spirit; and fruit comes AFTER one is already attached to the Vine.

I believe Scriptures teach that the first step in our salvation is God’s work FOR man through Christ, and that it was all by His grace; not an iota of human participation.  I call this the First Dimension (of the 3 dimensions) of the Gospel or the Past Tense of Salvation.  It is in the Second Dimension – the Present Tense of Salvation – where man’s participation is necessary.  That participation is by overcoming evil with good.  

It is in the first dimension that we were empowered, having been attached to Him Who is our Strength to overcome.  It is in the second dimension that we are to use His power to overcome evil with good.

Looking at your post some more, I do agree with your overall point.  The first step of our salvation is not our faith, but is the work of God in Christ, first in what was done through Christ in His ilfe, death, and resurrection, and presently the work of the Holy Spirit to draw us to Christ that we may be led to repent.  Our faith is but a reaction to the initiative taken by God.

Edited August 11, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[brotherly love]

Yes, it's possible, but challenging, for various reasons.  To mention a couple, the medium itself lends itself to being easily misunderstood, as one is missing things like voice inflection and body language, the result being that posts can come across one or two degrees angrier than what the author may have intended.  It's also easy to misunderstand someone as being sarcastic when that wasn't there intention (I think that happened with us).  Being limited only to printed words makes it a challenge.

Another challenge is people who post tend to have agendas, which I don't mean as either a good or bad thing.  It's simply that there has to be some reason that leads people to want to discuss, and often it's because people have things they want to share, and there can be a challenge to put on one's "listening hat" as well.

But in spite of these challenges, I've learned a great deal from these discussions.

I agree, we are just a few pixels shown on a screen, and we cant hear the tone of voice, or facial expressions. There are agendas that can be the driving force, and also entertainment, arguing can be the entertainment. Also, the post in a way is only valid as it is current, so a person may have a good point or message, but it becomes obsolete very quickly.

  I dont think forums are a great investment in time.

[pnattmbtc]

I agree, we are just a few pixels shown on a screen, and we cant hear the tone of voice, or facial expressions. There are agendas that can be the driving force, and also entertainment, arguing can be the entertainment. Also, the post in a way is only valid as it is current, so a person may have a good point or message, but it becomes obsolete very quickly.

  I dont think forums are a great investment in time.

The last sentence is interesting.  There are arguments both ways.  I think if you get into a mindset of trying to get someone to admit they are wrong, then you are right, as it almost never happens that someone admits a mistake, or even admits that a good point has been made.  However, on the positive side, I've found that many, many times I've been led to new thoughts, and have been introduced to things I didn't know (such as books I didn't know about), and also I read a number of beautiful posts just jumping around.  There are some great things to be found.

[Myron]

I am a bit concerned about the statement I highlighted in bold red above. It appears to me as salvation by works because UNLESS one believes first, the initial step in his salvation cannot come.  Believing is exercising faith, hence, it is work.  Faith is fruit of the Spirit; and fruit comes AFTER one is already attached to the Vine.

It is good that you are concerned, and if I were teaching this in the way the church normally teaches it rather than in the way the Bible teaches it you would be absolutely correct, it would be righteousness by works because until I say the magic words, "I accept Jesus as my personal savior," I cannot be saved.  The teachings of Jesus and Paul, as well as the types and shadows I have already explained all show this is not the case.

By the types and shadows justification by faith happens at Passover when the head of the household smears the blood on the doorposts and lintel of the house, and then everyone in it at the time, whether a member of the household or not, whether they had a hand in or even agreed with the act or not, is covered by the blood.  Therefore, while I am not saved until this happens it does not take any agreement on my part, and now by nearly all Christian doctrine I have branded myself a heretic.

The other major type for righteousness by faith is circumcision.  Because of the way Paul teaches about this it is generally considered to be a part of the Old Covenant, but it is not.  God gave it as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant which is unconditional and does not in any way relate to my promise to obey under the Old Covenant.  It was only required before I could even enter in to that later covenant and begin to learn the law.  Moses, Jeremiah and Paul are all three also very clear that the physical type is only a shadow of real circumcision which is removing the fleshly influence over the heart.

Circumcision, if done according to the law that defines this shadow, is done on the 8th day.  The child has no choice or control in this matter.  What 8-day old child could?  This cannot be by the choice of the individual who enters salvation by this act, but this is also why our salvation is not completed by this act; we must still go through sanctification and glorification before we arrive at full salvation, and sanctification very much includes an aspect of works, but it fails if those works are by the power of the flesh.  The life of Ishmael is the lawful proof of this.  The son of the flesh had to be cast out and could not inherit; he could not even qualify; he would always submit to sin and the flesh at some point.

There are three baptisms found in the prophecy of the feast days.  These three baptisms are spoken of throughout the law and the prophets in the Old Testament and even in many of the other historical stories which are themselves prophecies of various aspects of the Plan of Salvation.  All three of them are also present in the New Testament teachings on baptism, although few are even willing to consider the possibility.  Adventists do not even truly recognize the difference between John's baptism which is a baptism of repentance and the baptism of the Holy Spirit that accompanies Pentecost.  Then again, Adventists teach that Pentecost was removed from us (it was) and we cannot experience it again until the latter rain (this is not true) and entirely reject any real receiving of the Holy Spirit before that time.  The circumcision ceremony relates to John's baptism of repentance and the entering of righteousness by faith; the baptism of the Holy Spirit relates to Pentecost and the Bar Mitzvah (son of the law) ceremony, a ceremony that is not discussed at all in scripture although the right of passage it celebrates is mentioned often in the bible. In relation to Israel's journey to the Promised Land this was the stop at Sinai, and was the day on which God attempted to speak the law to the people, but they ran and refused to hear.  Contrary to SDA teaching there is a biblical basis for infant baptism; it is the baptism of John, the circumcision ceremony and Passover.  Adventists fail to recognize this because they fail to understand the legal basis for any baptism.  If you are unable to see how the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament you really do not know anything about either of them.

Finally we look at Jesus teaching on the matter of Righteousness by Faith. 

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.  John 12:32

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.  John 6:44

There is bad translating in both of these passages because the church almost universally refused to really believe in the sovereignty of God or that God will save everyone in the end as his law requires.  In both these verses the word translated draw is not translated to show its actual meaning.  It is a legal term (as all too many of these things are) drawn directly from the courtroom.  This is not speaking of someone who comes to the courtroom because something about the case interest him, or has come voluntarily for any other reason.  This word applies in either one of two cases, but most often to the one I will explain second.  If a witness is unwilling to come forward, or it is suspected he may not voluntarily attend the court proceedings he is issued a summons called a subpoena.  This court document orders your compelled appearance in the court to provide witness to the case.  A similar document in our current court system is a traffic ticket.  If you read the fine print on this ticket it is a summons to appear in court but giving you an option to simply plead guilty and pay the fine at any time you wish before the hearing date.  It is not a subpoena because it was not sworn out before and countersigned by a judge.  If you do not If you do not answer the summons, whether by subpoena or otherwise legally issued, the judge will then swear out a warrant for your arrest, and this brings us to the second case in which  this word applies.  A person under arrest does not voluntarily come before the judge. He comes before the judge in chains accompanied by an officer of the court who is there to compel his appearance and deal with him if he becomes unruly before the judge.  There is not choice here except how it is that you will fulfill the order compelling your appearance.  It can be accomplished by my own voluntary work, but it can also be compelled later if they do not appear before the judge "voluntarily".  This is prophesied by the celebration of Passover in the second month of the year instead of the first in Numbers 9:6-14.

Righteousness by faith is not done by my work, not even in the form of acknowledgment, but by God's compelling.  It is simply that I can answer the summons voluntarily in the first instance or I can be compelled in the second.  My justification comes only from Jesus death on the cross, and as he said, but being raised up he draws ALL men to him.  Paul makes it absolutely clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that this all is the same all that died in Adam, and that because of this drawing, the same "all" will be made alive.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Myron

[Samie]

 Here faith is contrasted with works.  Paul, in the clearest language, makes clear that faith is *not* work, e.g. "to him that worketh not, but believeth".

You have a very good point. Yes, faith is not work. It is the exercise of faith that is. Work is the application or use of energy.  Faith is the energy.

I could be mistaken but by "work" in Rom 4 which he contrasted with faith, Paul perhaps was referring to the work of the law, that is, acts done according to what the law says:

^NKJ Romans 2:14, 15  for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them

 

^NKJ Romans 9:30-32   ³⁰ What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;  ³¹ but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.  ³² Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

[Myron]

I could be mistaken but by "work" in Rom 4 which he contrasted with faith, Paul perhaps was referring to the work of the law, that is, acts done according to what the law says:

^NKJ Romans 2:14, 15  for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them

 

^NKJ Romans 9:30-32   ³⁰ What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;  ³¹ but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.  ³² Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Samie,

Your first reference here is another that I had intended to include in my response to you, so here I guess I'm preaching to the choir, so to speak.  As I have pointed out repeatedly Christians waste a lot of words because they do not know the New Covenant, either in its statement or how it works.   The New Covenant says,

³¹ “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
³² It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
³³ “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
³⁴ No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”

The New Covenant is, "I will write my law on their hearts."  Paul said of those gentiles in Romans 2:14, 15, "who show by their works that the law is written on their hearts."  By their visible works these people show that they have already received justification by faith in the blood of the lamb, even though they have never heard of the lamb and have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life even though they have never done the work the church normally claims is necessary by saying, "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior."  That "work" as you so accurately call it is not necessary to their salvation and the proof of this is that God has already proceeded to the second step under the New Covenant and started writing his law on their hearts.  I know many who have been doing the work multiple times over the years but have constantly resisted God's every effort to write his law on their hearts.  These are people you have referenced in the cite from chapter 9.

[Samie]

Circumcision, if done according to the law that defines this shadow, is done on the 8th day.  The child has no choice or control in this matter.  What 8-day old child could?  This cannot be by the choice of the individual who enters salvation by this act, but this is also why our salvation is not completed by this act; we must still go through sanctification and glorification before we arrive at full salvation, and sanctification very much includes an aspect of works, but it fails if those works are by the power of the flesh.  The life of Ishmael is the lawful proof of this.  The son of the flesh had to be cast out and could not inherit; he could not even qualify; he would always submit to sin and the flesh at some point.

I suggest we again review what the Bible teaches about sanctification: whose work and when.  It appears that sanctification is God's work for man through Christ. He sanctified us through the offering of the body of our Lord on the cross. We have absolutely NOTHING to do with our being sanctified or made holy.  And God wanted us to know this fact via the Sabbath.  Through the Sabbath, we are constantly reminded every week, that it is God who made us holy.

^NIV Hebrews 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

^NKJ Hebrews 10:10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

^NIV Ezekiel 20:12 Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the LORD made them holy.

 

^NKJ Ezekiel 20:12 "Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.

Having been sanctified, man's part is to live sanctified lives, that is, overcome evil with good.

[Samie]

In creation, God made the Sabbath holy.  In redemption, He made man holy. As the Sabbath has NOTHING to do with its being made holy, in like manner, man has NOTHING to do with his being made holy.  Sabbath is but the recipient of the holiness God imparted to it. So with man.  This is why we are enjoined to keep the Sabbath holy.  It is already holy in that God made it holy. We simply are to keep it holy. So with ourselves. We are already holy. We must keep ourselves holy, by overcoming evil with good.  And God gave us the Sabbath as the constant reminder of the holiness He imparted to us.  As we are to keep the Sabbath holy, we are also to keep ourselves holy.

May the redundancy find its mark, for if we persistently refuse to keep ourselves holy by overcoming evil with good while alive, then at death, our names will be blotted out from the Book of Life, detached from the Body of Christ, expelled from membership in the family of God.

[pnattmbtc]

"That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." -- Acts 26:18. 

 We are sanctified by faith just like we are justified by faith.

[Samie]

 We are sanctified by faith just like we are justified by faith.

The question is, whose faith?

[pnattmbtc]

The question is, whose faith?

Christ is talking, and speaks of those who are sanctified by faith in Him, so the answer to whose faith it is is "those who have faith in Christ." 

[Samie]

 We are sanctified by faith just like we are justified by faith.

The question is, whose faith?

Christ is talking, and speaks of those who are sanctified by faith in Him, so the answer to whose faith it is is "those who have faith in Christ." 

I believe there is a big difference in the phrase "sanctified by faith in Him" from the phrase "sanctified by faith that is in Him" and Jesus used the latter phrase. 

^KJV Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Whereas in the first phrase the faith is of men, in the second, the faith is of Jesus.  It is "faith in Christ" in the former; it is "faith of Christ" in the latter.

I think Scriptures are clear that we have nothing to do with our being justified or sanctified.

[pnattmbtc]

The question is, whose faith?

I believe there is a big difference in the phrase "sanctified by faith in Him" from the phrase "sanctified by faith that is in Him" and Jesus used the latter phrase. 

^KJV Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Whereas in the first phrase the faith is of men, in the second, the faith is of Jesus.  It is "faith in Christ" in the former; it is "faith of Christ" in the latter.

I think Scriptures are clear that we have nothing to do with our being justified or sanctified.

Your suggestion doesn't look to be grammatically possible.  If it were a genitive, you could argue if it was subjective or objective, but this isn't what's going on here.

Regarding our having nothing to do with being justified, consider the following:

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:9-14)

This is just one example, of which there are many, but it's quite clear here that the public did something which resulted in his being justified.

[pnattmbtc]

I looked some more into the Greek, and it looks like you got confused by the translation "faith that is in me" to think a possible meaning would be faith which was actually Jesus' faith (i.e. faith inside of Christ), but the expression means what we mean by saying "faith in Christ".  For example, Young's Literal Translation has "by faith that is toward me."  I looked at quite a few translations, in several different languages, and they all have "faith in me", as in the object of the faith, rather than Christ being the container of the faith.

[Samie]

Your suggestion doesn't look to be grammatically possible.  If it were a genitive, you could argue if it was subjective or objective, but this isn't what's going on here.

I looked some more into the Greek, and it looks like you got confused by the translation "faith that is in me" to think a possible meaning would be faith which was actually Jesus' faith (i.e. faith inside of Christ), but the expression means what we mean by saying "faith in Christ".  For example, Young's Literal Translation has "by faith that is toward me."  I looked at quite a few translations, in several different languages, and they all have "faith in me", as in the object of the faith, rather than Christ being the container of the faith.

I think this verse I have already presented some posts back settles the issue:

^NIV Hebrews 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

^NKJ Hebrews 10:10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

[Samie]

I looked some more into the Greek, and it looks like you got confused by the translation "faith that is in me" to think a possible meaning would be faith which was actually Jesus' faith (i.e. faith inside of Christ), but the expression means what we mean by saying "faith in Christ".  For example, Young's Literal Translation has "by faith that is toward me."  I looked at quite a few translations, in several different languages, and they all have "faith in me", as in the object of the faith, rather than Christ being the container of the faith.

IF the container of the faith that sanctified man is man himself, THEN it is no more God Who sanctified man but man himself.

[Samie]

IF the container of the faith that sanctified man is man himself, THEN it is no more God Who sanctified man but man himself.

The Sabbath is the perpetual weekly reminder that God is the sanctifier of men:

^NIV Ezekiel 20:12 Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the LORD made them holy.

 

^NKJ Ezekiel 20:12 "Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.